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

Manigault v. MacY's East, LLC

Carla Manigault sued Macy’s East, LLC and Terry Whittaker for alleged sexual harassment and retaliation under federal, New York State, and New York City human rights laws. Defendants sought to compel arbitration, citing Macy's "Solutions InSTORE" dispute resolution program which allowed employees to opt-out. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration, ruling that Manigault's mere silence and inaction did not constitute acceptance of the arbitration agreement under New York contract law. The court emphasized that a binding agreement requires clear manifestation of assent, which was absent despite Macy's efforts to inform employees about the opt-out procedure. The decision underscored the principle that an offeror cannot unilaterally create a contract based solely on an offeree's silence.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIFederal Arbitration ActContract LawArbitration AgreementOpt-Out PolicyEmployment LawSilence as AcceptanceHuman Rights Law
References
28
Case No. ADJ10745219
Regular
Jun 07, 2017

SUSHILA CHAND vs. MACY'S, MACY'S COPRORATE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Macy's petition for removal of an order denying their motion to quash a subpoena. Macy's argued the subpoena was improper because the applicant failed to request records directly from them first, violating a specific rule. The Board found Macy's claim of irreparable harm unconvincing, explaining the cited rule pertains to payment for copying services, not the validity of the subpoena itself. The proper recourse for Macy's alleged violation is to object to copying bills, not to quash the subpoena.

Removal petitionQuash subpoena duces tecumAdministrative Director Rule 9982WCAB Rule 10848Injured workerEmployer recordsMedical recordsCopying servicesIrreparable harmWCJ report and recommendation
References
2
Case No. ADJ8911967
Regular
Oct 02, 2014

URSULA KRAMER vs. MACY'S WEST, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES

This case concerns Macy's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award based on a stipulation. Macy's claims mutual mistake of fact and clerical error regarding permanent disability indemnity and attorney fees. The Board denies the petition, finding no mutual mistake and that Macy's error stemmed from a lack of diligence in drafting the stipulation. The Board emphasizes that stipulations are binding unless good cause is shown, which Macy's failed to demonstrate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulationsAwardMutual Mistake of FactClerical ErrorLabor Code §4658(d)Permanent DisabilityAttorney's FeeGood Cause
References
1
Case No. ADJ7885937
Regular
Apr 16, 2013

TARA MILLER vs. MACY'S WEST/MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES

This case involves Tara Miller's workers' compensation claim against Macy's West for a slip and fall injury. Macy's petitioned for reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) decision finding injury AOE/COE to the applicant's left wrist and back. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the applicant credible and the evidence supported the injury finding. Additionally, the petition was denied as it was not properly verified as required by Labor Code section 5902.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermissibly Self-InsuredWCJ credibilityLabor Code section 5902improperly verifiedinjury AOE/COEtemporary disabilityDefense Exhibit E
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07325 [189 AD3d 490]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2020

Rudnitsky v. Macy's Real Estate, LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order related to personal injuries sustained by Lee Rudnitsky, an employee of Shorr Electrical Contracting, Inc., who tripped over a two-by-four piece of lumber during a renovation at Macy's Herald Square. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denying Commodore Construction Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, and denying Shorr Electrical Contracting, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing Structure Tone, Inc.'s claim for attorneys' fees. The court found issues of fact regarding whether the obstruction was integral to the work being performed and addressed indemnification and breach of contract claims among the parties.

construction accidentpersonal injurysummary judgmentLabor LawIndustrial Codeindemnificationbreach of contractfailure to procure insurancepremises liabilityworkplace safety
References
7
Case No. ADJ1384238 (SAC 0366460)
Regular
Oct 09, 2017

ROSA VIRGEN vs. MACY'S WEST, MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES-RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Macy's West's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's decision not to grant a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Board found that a late supplemental report alone does not mandate a replacement QME under LC 4062.5 or AD Rule 31.5(a)(12). Granting a replacement QME for untimely supplemental reporting is discretionary and requires a showing of good cause, which Macy's failed to demonstrate. The Appeals Board retains exclusive jurisdiction over the validity of replacement panels.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluationPQMEReplacement PanelMedical DirectorTimelinessSupplemental ReportGood CausePrejudice
References
4
Case No. ADJ3609822
Regular
Aug 06, 2012

DARLENE VOGLEZON vs. MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORES

Defendant Macy's filed petitions challenging an order appointing an independent bill reviewer for ten lien claimants. The Appeals Board dismissed Macy's reconsideration petition as the order was not final but granted removal due to prejudice and irreparable harm. The Board found lien claimants failed to meet their burden to prove the reasonableness of their charges, rescinded the WCJ's order, and awarded sums based on Macy's expert testimony and evidence.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalIndependent Bill ReviewerLien ClaimantsReasonableness of ChargesBurden of ProofExpert Witness TestimonyOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleStipulated Award
References
13
Case No. ADJ7756785
Regular
Nov 02, 2013

MAHIN BARAB vs. MACY'S LOGISTICS AND OPERATIONS

This case involves Macy's seeking removal of a trial setting order due to a defective Declaration of Readiness (DOR). Macy's argued the DOR was improperly served and failed to provide for a medical evaluation under Labor Code section 4061(i). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the removal petition, rescinded the trial setting, and returned the case to the trial level. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, which agreed with Macy's contentions regarding the defective DOR and lack of proper service.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readinessdefective DORLabor Code section 4061(i)service requirementsMinute Orderrescindedtrial levelWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ6756142, ADJ6756143, ADJ7560236
Regular
Mar 04, 2013

VIOLET RAFILA vs. MACY'S, MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES

This order dismisses a Petition for Removal from Violet Rafila, Applicant, against Macy's, the Defendant. The Board found the petition untimely as it was filed more than 25 days after the January 24, 2013, decision. Even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits based on the Workers' Compensation Judge's report. The case remains scheduled for hearing on March 6, 2013.

Petition for RemovalUntimely Filing25-day deadline8 Cal. Code Regs. 10843Code of Civil Procedure § 1013Dismissal OrderWCJ's ReportWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardVan Nuys District OfficeSelf-Insured Employer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Macy's, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Corp.

This consolidated action involves Macy's (and its subsidiary MMG) suing J.C. Penney (JCP) for tortious interference with an exclusive licensing agreement Macy's had with Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSLO). Macy's held exclusive rights to Martha Stewart brands and designs in certain product categories. JCP intentionally induced MSLO to breach this contract by offering significant financial incentives and collaborating on designs for JCP-branded products to be sold in 'MSLO Stores' within JCP. The court found JCP liable for tortious interference, stating their conduct exceeded 'a minimum level of ethical behavior in the marketplace.' While initial injunctive reliefs were settled or withdrawn, the court referred the determination of damages and attorney's fees to a judicial hearing officer, but denied punitive damages.

Contract DisputeTortious InterferenceExclusivity ClauseLicensing AgreementRetail IndustryBrand ExclusivityBusiness EthicsCorporate MisconductNon-CompeteDamages
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 46 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