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. ADJ8903041
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

MAGALI MANRIQUE DE ARCHA vs. MCDONALD'S/SANCHEZ FAMILY CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

This order dismisses Magali Manrique de Archa's Petition for Removal in her workers' compensation case against McDonald's/Sanchez Family Corporation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted and incorporated the administrative law judge's report, which recommended dismissal. The Board found no grounds to grant removal, thus dismissing the petition.

Petition for RemovalDismissalReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge ReportSan Bernardino District OfficeSanchez Family CorporationCalifornia Restaurant Mutual Benefit CorporationAmerican Claims ManagementAlvandi Law Group
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Clumber Transportation Corp.

Clumber Transportation Corporation and Poppy Cab Corporation appealed decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board found both corporations to be employers, subject to workers’ compensation insurance requirements, because they leased taxicab medallions and, in Clumber's case, had more than one corporate officer prior to January 1, 1987. The corporations challenged the statutory employment relationship and the Board Chairman's authority to delegate penalty imposition. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2, finding that medallion leases created a statutory employment relationship. It also upheld the Board's finding regarding Clumber's multiple officers and the Chairman's delegation authority. However, the court modified the penalty against Poppy Cab Corporation, reducing it from $7,200 to $6,000, while affirming the decision against Clumber.

Workers Compensation LawTaxicab MedallionEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory EmploymentCorporate OfficersInsurance RequirementDelegation of AuthorityAdministrative PenaltiesAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2009

Johnson v. UniFirst Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Derrick Corporation, sustained injuries when his uniform, rented from UniFirst Corporation, caught fire. UniFirst, a defendant in the main personal injury action, filed a third-party complaint against Derrick for contractual indemnification. Derrick moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing that its contract with UniFirst had expired at the time of the accident, thus barring indemnification under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied Derrick's motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and Derrick's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. The appellate court found UniFirst failed to provide statutory notice for automatic contract renewal under General Obligations Law § 5-903 (2).

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawAutomatic Renewal ProvisionThird-Party ActionPersonal InjuryUniform FireEmployer LiabilityStatutory Notice
References
6
Case No. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Tredegar Corp.

Exxon Mobil Corporation sued Tredegar Corporation alleging breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). Exxon claimed Tredegar failed to indemnify it for a settlement in an underlying personal injury action and failed to cooperate in Exxon's defense as per the APA. Tredegar filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I, finding the indemnification provisions of the APA ambiguous regarding whether the liability was 'assumed' or 'retained'. However, the court largely denied the motion to dismiss Count II, concluding that Exxon plausibly alleged a breach of Tredegar's duty to cooperate and provide reasonable access to employees, with a partial grant for the records access claim under Section 12.7 of the APA.

asset purchase agreementindemnification clausebreach of contractduty to cooperatemotion to dismisscontract ambiguitycorporate acquisitionpre-closing occurrencespost-closing eventslitigation defense
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1987

Constantine v. Sperry Corp.

James Constantine, a passenger in a van leased by his employer Sperry Corporation, was injured when the van, operated by a fellow employee Oligario, struck a curb. The plaintiffs appealed a judgment denying their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross motion, dismissing the complaint. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that Constantine's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, making his sole remedy the Workers' Compensation Law. Consequently, both the employer and co-worker were immune from suit, and no liability could be imputed to the van owner, Gelco Corporation. The derivative claim by Constantine's wife was also dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationEmployer ImmunityCo-employee ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDerivative ClaimVan AccidentNassau CountyNew York
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cintas Corp. v. Unite Here

Cintas Corporation and its affiliates sued UNITE HERE, Change To Win, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and several individuals, alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Lanham Act, and Ohio state law. Cintas accused the defendants of orchestrating a "Corporate Campaign" to pressure them into a card-check/neutrality agreement, involving disparaging websites and communications targeting Cintas's customers and investors. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that Cintas failed to establish predicate acts for the RICO claims (attempted extortion under the Hobbs Act and Ohio law). Additionally, the Lanham Act claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting were dismissed due to lack of likelihood of confusion, commercial use for profit, or bad faith intent to profit. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Ohio state-law claims, leading to the dismissal of the entire action.

RICOLanham ActTrademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionTrademark DilutionCybersquattingHobbs ActLabor UnionsCorporate CampaignFreedom of Speech
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Broadway Maintenance Corp.

This case involves the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation (Broadway) disputing the termination date of Broadway's non-union employee pension plan. PBGC initiated the lawsuit to become the statutory trustee and sought to establish March 26, 1981, as the termination date. Broadway argued for an earlier, retroactive date. The court, guided by ERISA and the interests of the plan participants, rejected both parties' proposed dates. The judge formulated a test for involuntary terminations and ultimately established December 5, 1980, as the official termination date, citing the date PBGC first formalized its intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActInvoluntary TerminationTermination Date DisputeBankruptcyPlan Participants' InterestsStatutory TrusteeFiduciary DutyPension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Orenstein

This is a class action brought by shareholders of Topper Corporation against the corporation and various defendants, including Arthur Young & Company, alleging violations of federal securities laws due to false and misleading financial information. Defendant Arthur Young & Company moved to quash the plaintiffs' jury demand, asserting the case's complexity rendered it unsuitable for a jury, and alternatively sought a single, continuous trial for liability and damages. The Court, presided over by District Judge Bonsal, recognized the plaintiffs' Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Consequently, the Court denied Arthur Young's motion to quash the jury demand, concluding that the case, estimated to last six to eight weeks, was within a jury's capabilities. Additionally, the motion to mandate a continuous trial was denied, with the Court leaving open the possibility of bifurcating the trial on liability and damages at a later stage if needed.

Securities FraudClass ActionJury TrialFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSeventh AmendmentDue DiligenceFinancial MisrepresentationAuditing ProceduresUnderwriting ProceduresTrial Bifurcation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Xerox Corporation

Plaintiff Vanessa Patterson sued Xerox Corporation and Samuel Peterson, alleging discrimination based on national origin, race, and gender, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. She also included common law claims for negligent supervision and retention. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The court granted dismissal of Title VII claims against Peterson due to his status as a co-employee, and all common law negligence claims against both defendants, citing the exclusivity of the New York Worker's Compensation Law. However, the court denied dismissal of hostile work environment and retaliation claims against Xerox under Title VII, and against both Xerox and Peterson under the New York State Human Rights Law, finding them plausible and reasonably related to her EEOC charge.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawMotion to DismissEEOC ExhaustionIndividual LiabilityNegligent SupervisionWorker's Compensation Exclusivity
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 2,559 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