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. ADJ8377055
Regular
Dec 13, 2012

MARIA PEREZ vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

This case involves a petition for removal filed by a party in **Maria Perez v. Marriott International; Marriott Claims Services**. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued an order dismissing this petition. The dismissal is due to the petitioner's withdrawal of their request for removal. Therefore, the Board has formally closed the matter regarding the petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantMarriott InternationalMarriott Claims ServicesADJ8377055San Jose District OfficeDecision November 13 2012
References
0
Case No. ADJ3885934 (ANA 0349373)
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

SAUL GONZALEZ vs. REMEDY TEMP/CIGA FOR RELIANCE IN LIQUIDATION, MARRIOTT CORPORATION/MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration, reversing a prior decision that found no jurisdiction to hear CIGA's claim for reimbursement. The WCAB determined it retains supplemental jurisdiction over disputes between defendants, like CIGA and Marriott, even after the injured worker's case was dismissed for lack of prosecution. This decision recognizes that the dismissal was intended to address the applicant's failure to prosecute, not to extinguish CIGA's independent right to seek reimbursement from Marriott. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on CIGA's reimbursement claim.

CIGAReimbursementJurisdictionDismissalReconsiderationSupplemental JurisdictionContributionSpecial EmploymentLack of ProsecutionStipulation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marriott In-Flite Services, A Division of Marriott Corp. v. Local 504, Air Transport Division, Transport Workers of America

Marriott In-Flite Services sued Local 504 under the Labor Management Relations Act, alleging the union engaged in an unlawful secondary boycott by picketing KLM facilities to force Marriott to cease doing business with KLM. Marriott provided in-flight meals to KLM, which was embroiled in a labor dispute with Local 504 over the closure of KLM's commissary. Local 504 picketed the commissary, which Marriott had leased, believing Marriott was performing 'struck work' and was an 'ally' of KLM, not a neutral third party. The court found that Marriott was not an innocent bystander but an ally of KLM, as it undertook work previously done by striking employees. Therefore, Local 504's actions did not constitute an unfair labor practice, and the court dismissed Marriott's damages claim, entering judgment in favor of the defendant union.

Labor Management Relations ActSecondary BoycottUnfair Labor PracticeAlly DoctrinePrimary PicketingUnion DisputeStruck WorkLabor LawLMRAAirport Services
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Engler v. United Parcel Service

Claimant, a delivery driver for United Parcel Service, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2001, alleging interstitial pulmonary fibrosis due to exposure to dust and irritants. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found he suffered an occupational disease and permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, but the Court reversed in 2003, remitting the case to consider accidental injury. In an amended decision, the Board ruled claimant sustained an accidental injury from airborne irritants. The employer and carrier appealed again. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's condition arose from unusual environmental factors within his delivery vehicle, consistent with medical opinions linking his lung disease to mixed dust exposure at work.

Interstitial Pulmonary FibrosisOccupational ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausally Related InjuryDelivery Vehicle EnvironmentAirborne IrritantsMedical TestimonyBiopsy FindingsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 02-CV-6666L
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
83
Case No. CV-22-2154
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Naomi Dent

Naomi Dent, an employee of Amazon.com Services, Inc. in Staten Island, sustained injuries to her left foot, ankle, and lower leg while attempting to board a public bus on her second day of work, claiming she was pushed and trampled. She reported the incident approximately two weeks later and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board denied her claim, ruling that her injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, as the incident occurred off-premises and on public transportation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting the 'special hazard' alleged was a common risk of public transit, unrelated to employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentArise Out Of EmploymentGoing and Coming RulePublic TransportationOff-Premises InjurySpecial HazardAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBus Accident
References
7
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. 94 Civ. 2336
Regular Panel Decision

Mohamed v. Marriott International, Inc.

Ahmed Mohamed, a profoundly deaf individual, sued Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Corporation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law for wrongful discharge. Marriott moved for summary judgment, arguing Mohamed should be judicially estopped from asserting an ADA claim because he had previously applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (SSDI), stating he was unable to work. The court denied Marriott's motion. It ruled that judicial estoppel was inappropriate given the differing legal standards between ADA and SSDI, the nature of SSDI administrative determinations (paper application for a listed disability), and the policy goals of the ADA which encourage disabled individuals to seek employment. The court found ample evidence that Mohamed was able to perform the essential functions of his job.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Judicial EstoppelSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationSocial Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)New York State Human Rights LawEmployment LawQualified Individual with a DisabilityReasonable AccommodationDeafness
References
32
Case No. 530021, 531210
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Michel Salinas

The case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board concerning a claim for work-related injuries by Michel Salinas. The WCLJ initially identified Power Services Solutions LLC as the employer and Everest National Insurance Company as the carrier, despite a printing error on the notice of hearing. Everest's appeal to the Board was denied as untimely, a decision subsequently upheld by the full Board. The Appellate Division found that the Board abused its discretion in denying Everest's application for review, citing defective or misleading correspondence and strong evidence suggesting a fraudulent certificate of insurance. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the Board's responsibility to investigate potential fraud.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewTimeliness of AppealAbuse of DiscretionFraudulent DocumentsInsurance CoverageEmployer IdentificationNotice RequirementsAdministrative LawWork-Related Accident
References
20
Case No. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
Showing 1-10 of 21,653 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