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

S.A.F. La Sala Corp. v. CNA Insurance Companies

Plaintiffs S.A.F. La Sala Corp. and La Sala Mason Corp. (collectively La Sala) obtained a comprehensive general liability policy from defendant Transcontinental Insurance Co., an affiliate of CNA Insurance Companies. The policy included a composite rate change endorsement establishing a minimum premium of $165,827. Following an audit, the earned premium was determined to be $107,336. Transcontinental refunded La Sala the difference between the estimated and minimum premiums, which was $55,275. La Sala initiated legal action, contending they were owed an additional $58,491, representing the difference between the estimated and earned premiums, and the motion court initially granted summary judgment in their favor. This appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, denying La Sala's motion for summary judgment and granting Transcontinental's cross-motion, ruling that the endorsement clearly mandated the retention of the minimum premium and did not violate New York Insurance Law.

Insurance LawContract InterpretationMinimum Premium ClauseSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentAppellate ReviewPolicy EndorsementEarned PremiumEstimated Premium
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re La Nova Pizzeria, Inc.

La Nova Pizzeria, Inc. appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which had assessed them for additional unemployment insurance contributions related to their delivery drivers. La Nova contended that the drivers were not employees. The court found that the Board’s decision lacked substantial evidence to prove an employment relationship, noting that drivers used their own vehicles, paid for food, and could work for other restaurants, indicating a lack of control by La Nova. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriversControl TestSubstantial EvidenceAppeal BoardReversalRemittalErie County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Concha v. Fordham University

Plaintiff Harry de la Concha sued his former employer, Fordham University, alleging discrimination based on race (Latino) and national origin (Puerto Rican) after his termination. Fordham moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the discharge. The court found no evidence to support a claim of national origin discrimination and granted summary judgment to Fordham on that claim. Regarding the race discrimination claim, the court determined that de la Concha failed to demonstrate that Fordham's stated reasons for his dismissal were a pretext for discrimination, despite an immediate supervisor's use of racial slurs. Consequently, the court granted Fordham's motion for summary judgment on the race claim, dismissing de la Concha's Title VII claim in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentPretextHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Le Myre v. La Belle

This case involves appeals from two Workers’ Compensation Board decisions. The Board found that the claimant, a 15-year-old groom, suffered a disabling injury within the course of employment and established an employer-employee relationship with Stephen M. La Belle, owner of Steve Belle’s Racing Stable. La Belle contended the claimant was a volunteer, denying any payment. The Board, however, credited the claimant’s testimony regarding the nature of the work, payment, and La Belle's control, finding substantial evidence for an employer-employee relationship. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions.

Employer-Employee DisputeSubstantial Evidence ReviewCredibility AssessmentAppellate AffirmationMinor EmploymentEquine IndustryOccupational InjuryWage Non-Payment ClaimSaratoga CountyBoard Decision Appeal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers, International Union of America v. General Baking Co.

The case involves a union, representing production and maintenance employees, suing several bakery companies for an alleged lockout. The union brought the action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, claiming a breach of the no-lockout provisions in their collective bargaining agreements. The alleged lockout occurred when the defendant bakery companies halted operations and sent home the plaintiff union's members, even though there was no direct labor dispute between them. This action was a response to a strike by a separate drivers' union against one of the bakery companies. The court defined a lockout as an employer withholding work to gain a concession *from their employees*. Since the defendants were not in a dispute with the plaintiff union and their actions were not intended to coerce concessions from them, the court ruled that no lockout had occurred. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Labor LawLockoutCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActBreach of ContractNo-lockout ClauseStrikeUnionEmployer-employee Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Harvest Bakery Inc.

This case involves allegations by plaintiffs Maximino Rivera, Miguel Roldan, and Oscar Quintanilla against Harvest Bakery, Inc., Robert Marconti, and Jose Gonzalez. The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to pay overtime and spread of hours wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The core of the dispute revolves around whether the defendants had a common policy of not paying these wages to their production workers. The Court addresses the defendants' arguments regarding the prematurity and mootness of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, ultimately rejecting them. The Court then proceeds to grant the plaintiffs' motion, certifying a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees who worked for Harvest Bakery in New York, and appoints class counsel, finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, and superiority) have been met.

Wage and Hour LawOvertime PaySpread of Hours WagesClass Action CertificationRule 23(b)(3)FLSA ViolationNYLL ViolationCommonalityTypicalityNumerosity
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Yanas v. Bimbo Bakeries

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for wrist pain, including carpal tunnel syndrome and flexor tendonitis, alleging it was an occupational disease from duties at Bimbo Bakeries. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the claim, finding insufficient evidence of repetitive motion and rejecting physician opinions for lacking adequate understanding of the claimant’s work and medical history. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. On appeal, the court further affirmed, emphasizing that the Board’s factual findings regarding occupational disease, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed, and that the Board is entitled to reject medical evidence deemed inadequately founded.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRepetitive Strain InjuryMedical CausationSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard DecisionPhysician TestimonyWork ActivitiesCredibility Assessment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romero v. La Revise Associates L.L.C.

Ruben Romero initiated a lawsuit against La Revise Associates, LLC, Jean Denoyer, and Regis Marnier, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Romero sought conditional approval for a collective action on behalf of tipped employees and kitchen staff, claiming underpayment of minimum wage, improper tip credit notices, excessive non-tipped duties, and wage manipulation. Defendants contested the motion, citing existing arbitration agreements with many employees. The court granted Romero's motion for conditional approval, ruling that the arbitrability of claims is a merits issue not relevant at this preliminary stage. The court also approved the proposed notice, limiting the look-back period for potential plaintiffs to three years as per FLSA, rather than the six years under NYLL.

FLSANYLLCollective ActionConditional CertificationTipped EmployeesMinimum WageTip CreditArbitration AgreementsWage and Hour DisputesEmployment Law
References
32
Case No. VNO 0490165, VNO 0490166
Regular
Feb 22, 2008

EUGENIA JUAREZ vs. LA BREA BAKERY, ZENITH NATIONAL INSURANCE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the Board denied a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Eugenia Juarez. The denial was based on the administrative law judge's report, which the Board adopted and incorporated. Therefore, the applicant's request for reconsideration of the original decision was officially rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLa Brea BakeryZenith National InsuranceLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ ReportSan FranciscoService by Mail
References
0
Case No. 526783
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Matter of Scott v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.

Claimant, Erin Scott, worked for 20 years at a commercial bakery, performing duties involving prolonged standing and repetitive lifting and bending. In August 2011, she experienced back pain but continued working. Her condition progressively worsened over three years, leading her to file an incident report and seek medical treatment in May 2014. She filed a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The carrier contested, arguing it was an accidental injury and time-barred, but the Workers' Compensation Board and the Appellate Division affirmed the decision that it was a causally-related occupational disease, not time-barred, as her job duties exacerbated her underlying back condition.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation LawCausationRepetitive Motion InjuryLower Back PainDegenerative Disc DiseaseStatute of LimitationsAppellate DivisionMedical TestimonyBoard Review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 288 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