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

Claim of Colin v. Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc.

The claimant, a for-hire driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an automobile accident, naming Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc. and Yolette Kernisan as employers. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the claimant was an independent contractor of Express. On appeal, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the finding that the claimant was not an employee of Yolette Kernisan and remitting the matter for further consideration regarding Kernisan's relationship with the claimant, citing an improper control standard. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding of no employment relationship with Express, supported by substantial evidence regarding drivers supplying their own vehicles and expenses, and ability to work for other companies.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentRadio-Dispatched Car ServiceVehicle OwnershipControl TestRemittalAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sulewski v. Federal Express Corp.

A cargo plane crashed in Malaysia in 1989, resulting in the death of aircraft mechanic Leonard Sulewski. The plaintiff initiated a wrongful death action against Federal Express Corporation, successor to Flying Tiger Line, alleging liability under the Warsaw Convention and common law negligence. The central legal question revolved around whether Sulewski was traveling as a passenger or an on-duty employee at the time of the crash. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, presenting arguments regarding Sulewski's employment status and the applicability of the Convention. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact, concluding that Sulewski was an on-duty employee, not a passenger, and therefore the Warsaw Convention did not apply. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Wrongful DeathWarsaw ConventionSummary JudgmentAirline LiabilityEmployee StatusPassenger StatusInternational TransportationAircraft MechanicScope of EmploymentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2008

Borrero v. American Express Bank Ltd.

Plaintiff Catalina Borrero sued her former employer, American Express Bank, Ltd. (AEB), alleging gender discrimination and retaliation under federal, state, and city laws. AEB moved for summary judgment. The court, presided over by Judge Chin, granted summary judgment in part, dismissing Title VII claims occurring before May 12, 2004, due to statute of limitations. However, summary judgment was denied for remaining Title VII disparate treatment claims, Equal Pay Act (EPA) claims, retaliation claims, and analogous state and city law claims, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding Circle's actions, wage disparity, and constructive discharge. A pretrial conference is scheduled for February 15, 2008.

Gender discriminationRetaliationTitle VIIEqual Pay ActSummary judgmentConstructive dischargeHostile work environmentWage discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allan v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Structural Preservation Systems (SPS), was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while performing structural repairs in a building owned by 500 Lincoln, LLC and leased by DHL Express (USA), Inc. The plaintiff commenced an action against both entities, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln and denied DHL's motions for summary judgment to dismiss various claims against it. On appeal, the court modified the Supreme Court's decision, determining that DHL should have been granted summary judgment dismissing all Labor Law and common-law negligence claims against it, as DHL neither directed nor controlled the work. The court also found that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln should have been denied due to triable issues of fact regarding proximate cause and the availability of adequate safety devices.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationProximate CauseSafe Place to WorkOwner LiabilityLessee Liability
References
29
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00080 [201 AD3d 1045]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Matter of Fiorelli (Stallion Express, LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns Charlene Fiorelli's claim for unemployment insurance benefits after her delivery courier services for Stallion Express, LLC (SE) concluded. The Department of Labor determined she was an employee, making SE liable for contributions, a decision affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. SE appealed, contending Fiorelli was an independent contractor. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's ruling, finding substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship based on SE's significant control over Fiorelli's work, including mandatory uniforms, background checks, training, scheduled routes, and specific delivery and documentation procedures.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery CourierUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardSubstantial EvidenceControl TestDepartment of LaborLogistics BusinessAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund v. DOREN AVE. ASSOCIATES, INC.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund pursuing withdrawal liability payments from Doren Avenue Associates, Inc., Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC. The Fund alleged these defendants were under common control with or alter egos of Howard’s Express, Inc., a company previously obligated to the Fund. The court ruled that determining the defendants' "employer status" under the MPPAA was a matter for judicial decision, not arbitration. It denied the Fund's motion for summary judgment due to insufficient evidence on the common control and alter ego claims against Express and S&P. Conversely, the court granted the summary judgment motion for Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC, dismissing the complaint against them and terminating related arbitration proceedings, while granting a default judgment against Doren Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pension Withdrawal LiabilityMPPAAERISACommon Control DoctrineAlter Ego LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionFederal Court JurisdictionArbitration TerminationCorporate Ownership StructureEmployee Benefit Plans
References
27
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03329
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2023

Castro v. Wythe Gardens, LLC

The plaintiff, a construction worker, sustained injuries after tripping in a gap between a staircase step and landing. He initiated an action against Express Builders, the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6). Express Builders then filed third-party claims seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed a third-party indemnification claim. The Appellate Division modified this ruling, determining that Labor Law section 240(1) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) were not applicable to the plaintiff's injuries as they did not involve elevation-related risks or a hazardous opening for a complete fall. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for the plaintiff under Labor Law section 241(6), based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) pertaining to tripping hazards. The Appellate Division also reinstated the contractual indemnification claim against Bayport Construction Corp., citing triable issues of fact, and upheld the denial of Express Builders' indemnification claims against Urban Precast and Urban Erectors due to unresolved questions regarding Express Builders' own negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial Code ViolationSummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationTripping HazardElevation-Related RiskAppellate DivisionPersonal InjurySubcontractor Agreement
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chung v. Express Tours, Inc.

The defendants appealed an order denying their motion for partial summary judgment and a change of venue. The Appellate Court reversed the order, granting the defendants' motion, dismissing the causes of action by plaintiffs Jiang Yi Wang and Sandy Liu, and severing the action for the remaining plaintiffs. The Court found that Wang's and Liu's claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law because the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding Wang's employment as a tour guide for defendant Express Tours, Inc., and whether Express had obtained Workers’ Compensation insurance coverage for him. Consequently, the venue for the remaining plaintiffs was transferred from Kings County to Richmond County.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentVenue ChangeTour GuideEmployer LiabilityEvidentiary ValueAppellate ReviewKings CountyRichmond County
References
3
Case No. ADJ11167540
Regular
Feb 15, 2019

CHARLES SENIFF vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Federal Express's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding of jurisdiction. Federal Express argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant did not work in California after 2006. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found California jurisdiction supported by Labor Code section 3600.5(a) and precedent case law, deeming these sufficient grounds despite the defendant's jurisdictional challenge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFederal Express CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ11167540Santa Ana District OfficeAmended Findings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgejurisdictionLabor Code section 3600.5(a)Alaska Packers Asso. v. Industrial Acci. Com.
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 393 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