CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peninsula National Bank v. Allen Carpet Shops, Inc. (In Re Allen Carpet Shops, Inc.)

The creditors' committee moved for reargument and reconsideration of a previous court decision that granted summary judgment in favor of Peninsula National Bank (PNB) against Allen Carpet Shops, Inc., the debtor in a Chapter 11 reorganization. PNB sought administrative priority for various payroll account overdrafts. The court reaffirmed the summary judgment for a $19,545.16 portion of PNB's claim and clarified that a $12,684.17 pre-petition overdraft constituted a general unsecured claim. However, the court identified several unanswered material facts concerning a $37,892.92 portion of PNB's claim, which involved checks drawn pre-petition but honored post-petition. Consequently, the court warranted a rehearing specifically on this disputed portion of the claim, effectively granting the committee's motion for reargument in part.

BankruptcyChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingSummary JudgmentReargument MotionAdministrative Expense PriorityWage PriorityDebtor-in-PossessionOverdraftsCreditors' Committee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1999

Spitzer v. Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Avenue, Inc.

The plaintiff, Sara Spitzer, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Avenue, Inc., and Germonds Properties Corporation. Spitzer had suffered personal injuries from a slip and fall incident at the shopping center, allegedly due to a maintenance worker. The defendants presented evidence that an independent contractor, not their employees, performed the cleaning services. The court found no intrinsic danger in the cleaning activity and no proof of defendant control over the contractor's work. Consequently, the defendants were not held liable for the independent contractor's alleged negligence, and the order dismissing the complaint against them was affirmed.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceSlip and FallProperty Owner LiabilityMaintenance ServicesConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05003
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2019

Reyes v. Bruckner Plaza Shopping Ctr. LLC

Plaintiff Amilcar Reyes fell from a building roof while installing gravel stops and sued under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. It granted Reyes's motion for partial summary judgment against Bruckner Plaza Shopping Center LLC and Metro Mechanical, LLC, concluding that no safety devices were provided. However, it dismissed the complaint against Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp., the managing agent, finding it lacked supervisory authority over the worksite. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding Western Beef Retail, Inc., stating there was an issue of fact as to its status as an 'owner' or 'agent.'

Labor Law 240(1)Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityManaging Agent LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractorFall from HeightSafety Devices
References
10
Case No. 8 N.Y.3d 892
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2007

In the Matter of Cagle v. Judge Motor Corporation

This case involves a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The initial motion for leave to appeal was previously denied, as referenced in 7 NY3d 922. Kim M. Cagle, as Voluntary Administrator of the Estate of John R. Cagle, Deceased, is the appellant. Judge Motor Corporation and the Workers' Compensation Board are the respondents. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York considered the motion on February 5, 2007, and rendered its decision on March 22, 2007.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealWorkers' CompensationEstateVoluntary Administrator
References
1
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00333 [168 AD3d 1240]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2019

Matter of Vazquez v. Skuffy Auto Body Shop

Luis Vazquez, an auto body technician, sustained a work-related back injury in 2013 and received workers' compensation benefits. His benefits were suspended in November 2015, and upon his application for reinstatement, the carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to undisclosed work for a landscaping business. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found no violation, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, determining that Vazquez knowingly made material misrepresentations about his return to work and was subject to mandatory disqualification of benefits from April 25, 2016, to December 28, 2016, and future indemnity benefits after December 29, 2016. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Vazquez violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making false representations and omissions regarding his work activity to obtain benefits. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's imposition of a penalty disqualifying him from future indemnity benefits, citing a pattern of deceit.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent MisrepresentationDisqualification of BenefitsUndisclosed Work ActivityCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardIndemnity BenefitsLandscaping Business
References
5
Case No. ADJ10041209
Regular
Mar 16, 2017

Sergio Riffo vs. Simha Management Corp, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board rescinded sanctions imposed by a WCJ for alleged "judge shopping" because the sanctioned parties were not afforded proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. The WCJ's charge of "judge shopping" was too broadly defined and did not encompass all of the reasons subsequently cited in the WCJ's report for the sanctions. Given the procedural deficiencies and the underlying facts, the Board exercised its discretion to avoid further proceedings. However, applicant's representatives were admonished that future failures to maintain proper representation documentation could lead to sanctions.

Labor Code § 5813CCR 10561Judge shoppingSanctionsReconsiderationHearing RepresentativeAttorney representationDue processNotice and opportunity to be heardAdmonition
References
5
Case No. ADJ10302037
Regular
Apr 19, 2017

HORACE WILLIAMS vs. ALAMEDA COUNTY, YORK RISK SERVICES

The applicant, Horace Williams, filed a Petition to Disqualify Judge Christopher Miller prior to an expedited hearing. Following this petition, the case was reassigned to a different judge, Stanley Shields. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition as moot due to the reassignment of the judge. The Board's order reflects that the disqualification petition is therefore dismissed.

Petition to DisqualifyWCJReassignmentMootDismissedExpedited HearingRemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeOakland District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ7670179, ADJ7673731
Regular
Jan 25, 2012

OMAR HERNANDEZ vs. THE BUMBER SHOP, AVIZENT PRAETORIAN INSURANCE, CHARTIS INSURANCE

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) case, the applicant, Omar Hernandez, filed a Petition for Removal. The WCAB reviewed the petition and the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Based on their review and the judge's report, the WCAB has denied the Petition for Removal. The Order indicates the WCAB found no grounds to disturb the administrative law judge's decision.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Removaldenial of removalworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJ reportADJ7670179ADJ7673731Marina del Rey District OfficeFrank M. BrassDeidra E. Lowe
References
0
Case No. ADJ8217179
Regular
Jun 18, 2012

CYNTHIA BRUNNEMER vs. DFA OF CALIFORNIA, LIBERTY MUTUAL

Applicant's attorney filed a petition that was initially miscaptioned as a "Petition for Disqualification," causing confusion for the Workers' Compensation Judge. The applicant later amended the petition to clarify it sought only an "automatic reassignment" (peremptory challenge) of the judge, not disqualification. The Appeals Board dismissed the disqualification portion and remanded the reassignment petition for determination by the presiding judge or a designee. The Board cautioned the attorney about the wasted time and resources due to the imprecise initial filing.

Petition for DisqualificationAutomatic ReassignmentWCJWCAB Rule 10453WCAB Rule 10452Peremptory ChallengePresiding WCJReport and RecommendationLab. Code § 5311Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10452
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 8,445 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational