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

Suarez v. Food Emporium, Inc.

Plaintiff, a job coach for Casita Unida Clubhouse, was injured after slipping on a wet floor while filling in for a transitional employee at defendant Food Emporium. Although he received workers' compensation benefits, plaintiff also commenced a personal injury action against Food Emporium. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was barred because plaintiff was a 'special employee' of Food Emporium. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed. The court determined, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was a special employee due to Food Emporium's control over his work, thus dismissing the complaint.

Summary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarPersonal InjuryControl and DirectionAppellate ReviewDeli DepartmentJob CoachEmployer LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
4
Case No. ADJ2388348 (FRE 0248294)
Regular
Apr 08, 2011

Rodney Cotta vs. Leprino Foods

Defendant Leprino Foods sought reconsideration of an award finding applicant Rodney Cotta sustained an industrial injury to his right knee on or about September 24, 2007. While Cotta had a prior knee injury in 2002, he received no treatment after 2003. Medical evidence, particularly Dr. Sorenson's report, supported the WCJ's finding of a new injury, deeming it an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, distinct from the prior injury. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the 2007 incident constituted a new industrial injury.

New industrial injuryRight kneeSeptember 242007Reconsideration deniedPrevious injuryStipulated award3% permanent disabilitySpecific injuryReceiving foreman
References
0
Case No. ADJ83 11836
Regular
Apr 15, 2016

ALFONSO SALAZAR vs. LEPRINO FOODS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Leprino Foods' petition for reconsideration, affirming a prior order for reinstatement and increased pension benefits for applicant Alfonso Salazar. The employer challenged the order to pay increased pension benefits directly to the applicant, arguing it violated a collective bargaining agreement. The Board found that while standard workers' compensation is not a make-whole remedy, Labor Code section 132a, designed to prevent discrimination, entitles employees to be made whole for losses from wrongful termination. The Court clarified that the employer was ordered to pay applicant damages calculated by reference to lost pension benefits, not to violate the CBA by paying pension contributions directly to the plan.

Labor Code section 132aReissued OrderPetition for Reconsiderationreinstatementpension benefitscollective bargaining agreementWestern Conference of Teamsters Pension Planmake-whole remedywrongful terminationpermanent and stationary date
References
0
Case No. ADJ3226482 (FRE 0237862)
Regular
Jul 02, 2009

JOEY BARELA vs. LEPRINO FOODS, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Leprino Foods' petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's finding of industrial injury to the applicant's low back. The Board found that the applicant's $34\%$ permanent disability rating, determined using the AMA Guides and the 2005 Schedule, was correct, even though the applicant self-procured back surgery after the defendant denied authorization. Despite the denial, the agreed medical examiner later opined the surgery was reasonable and necessary, and it relieved the applicant's symptoms, supporting the disability assessment. Defendant did not rebut the permanent disability calculation under Labor Code section 4660.

Self-procured surgeryAgreed Medical ExaminerPermanent disability ratingAMA GuidesLabor Code section 4660Utilization reviewSecond opinionDRE Category IVWhole Person ImpairmentReconsideration denied
References
8
Case No. ADJ3434154
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

GARY ZIMMERMAN vs. LEPRINO FOODS, INC., MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Leprino Foods violated Labor Code section 132a by failing to place the applicant on a required union leave of absence. While the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant's termination was lawful based on a doctor's work restrictions, they awarded a 50% increase in compensation up to $10,000, plus costs, due to the Section 132a violation. However, the Board denied back pay, agreeing with the WCJ that lost wages were not caused by the employer's contract violation but by the lawful termination and the applicant's insufficient mitigation efforts. A dissenting commissioner argued for back pay, citing the discriminatory nature of the termination during the mandated leave and the lack of evidence for the WCJ's findings on misleading doctors and failed mitigation.

Labor Code section 132aLeprino FoodsMatrix Absence Management CompanyGary ZimmermanBrian Belanger D.C.permanent and stationary reportunion grievanceArbitratorback payreinstatement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arcadi v. Nestle Foods Corp.

This class action, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), involved employees and former employees of Nestle Foods Corporation who sought overtime compensation for time spent changing into and out of mandatory uniforms. The defendant, Nestle, moved for summary judgment, arguing that this time was non-compensable based on an established "custom or practice" under their collective bargaining agreement, as permitted by FLSA § 203(o). Plaintiffs contended they never explicitly agreed to forgo such compensation. The court examined prior case law on Section 203(o) and found compelling similarities, noting that the employees effectively bargained away their right to compensation for clothes-changing time in exchange for other concessions. Consequently, the court granted Nestle's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Collective Bargaining AgreementOvertime CompensationUniform PolicyClothes-Changing TimeSummary JudgmentClass Action LawsuitCustom or PracticeLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jacobs v. Dellwood Foods

Claimant, a truck driver for Dellwood Foods, was injured when a company truck ran over his foot while he was walking to the company parking lot after purchasing lunch. Initially, the Workers' Compensation Board awarded compensation, but later rescinded it, finding the accident not to be in the course of employment. Dellwood Foods and its carrier appealed this reversal. The court analyzed whether the accident, occurring on a public sidewalk, fell within the "gray area" of employment, considering the presence of a Dellwood truck as a special hazard and the claimant's normal route. The court found both elements present, concluding the accident was compensable. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision that denied compensation and reinstated the original awards made to the claimant.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentGray Area DoctrineSpecial HazardRoute to WorkPublic Sidewalk InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard ReversalJurisdictional ReviewAccident Compensability
References
7
Case No. 2023-00083 (Index No. 11032/18)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2024

Miolan v. Milmar Food Group, LLC

Alquidania Miolan appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which granted summary judgment to Milmar Food Group, LLC, and Milmar Food Group II, LLC. Miolan sought damages for personal injuries from a slip and fall at a facility operated by the Milmar defendants, where she was employed through a staffing agency. The Milmar defendants successfully argued that Miolan's claims were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, asserting they were her 'special employer.' The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Milmar defendants had established, prima facie, their status as Miolan's special employer. Consequently, the court concluded that Miolan's claims were barred by the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployerSummary JudgmentPersonal InjurySlip and FallAppellate ReviewExclusivity ProvisionStaffing AgencyOrange CountyPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falkowski v. Krasdale Foods, Inc.

This case involves appeals and a cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County. Commercial Personnel Services, Inc., Commercial Transportation Group, and Commercial Logistics, Inc. appealed parts of the order that granted summary judgment to Krasdale Foods, Inc. on claims of contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. Krasdale Foods, Inc. cross-appealed the granting of the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a negligent entrustment cause of action, and the denial of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order regarding both the appeals and the cross-appeal. This decision upholds the lower court's rulings on contractual indemnification, breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and the allowance of the amended complaint for negligent entrustment, while denying Krasdale's motion to dismiss the complaint due to unresolved issues of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceNegligent EntrustmentAppellate ProcedureThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmed Order
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 1985

Caporino v. General Foods Corp.

Gabriel Caporino, an employee of General Foods Corporation, disappeared in March 1974. His wife, the claimant, filed for workers' compensation death benefits, but the case was initially closed. Five years later, the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester County declared Caporino legally dead as of March 7, 1979, based on his unexplained absence. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently reopened the case and awarded benefits using the 1979 death date. The employer appealed, arguing that the date of death should be the date of disappearance in 1974. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing EPTL 2-1.7 (a) which supports the presumption of death five years after an unexplained absence.

Workers' CompensationPresumption of DeathDisappearanceDate of DeathEPTL 2-1.7Appellate ReviewEmployer AppealDeath BenefitsUnexplained AbsenceLegal Presumption
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 477 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