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

United States v. Doe

This case involves an antitrust investigation into the linen supply industry in the New York Metropolitan area. Grand Jury subpoenas were served on various linen supply companies (Suppliers), their association (Linen Supply Institute of New York), and a union (Laundry Workers International Union, Local 284 AFL). The Suppliers, Association, and Union filed motions to quash or modify these subpoenas, citing unreasonableness, oppressiveness, and jurisdictional doubts. District Judge McGOHEY largely denied these motions, asserting the Grand Jury's broad investigative powers and confirming the reasonableness of the subpoena's scope and timeframe. However, the court did grant limited relief by exempting documents already possessed by the Government and by narrowing certain demands related to the Union's internal financial data.

AntitrustGrand JurySubpoena Duces TecumQuashing SubpoenaModifying SubpoenaLinen Supply IndustryLabor UnionInterstate CommerceJudicial DiscretionDepartment of Justice
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2006

Beaucejour v. General Linen Supply & Laundry Co.

The defendants, General Linen Supply and Laundry Co., Inc., and Cascade Linen Supply Corp., appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The appellate court modified the order by granting summary judgment to General Linen, finding that the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions barred the plaintiff's tort claim against their employer. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Cascade, concluding that Cascade failed to provide sufficient evidence, based on personal knowledge, to establish it was an alter ego of General Linen, and thus could not invoke the same defense. The decision highlights the importance of presenting competent evidence in admissible form to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. This case underscores the legal requirements for establishing an employer-employee relationship defense and the alter ego doctrine in summary judgment motions.

Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity ProvisionsAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ReviewPrima Facie EntitlementProbative ValuePersonal KnowledgeTriable Issue of Fact
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yklik Medical Supply, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

Plaintiff Yklik Medical Supply, Inc., a medical supply provider, sued Allstate Insurance Company to recover $317 in unpaid medical bills for equipment supplied to its assignor, Tammy Agosto. Yklik moved for summary judgment, asserting proper bill submission and Allstate's failure to timely pay or deny the claim. Allstate argued that the charges exceeded the Workers' Compensation fee schedule and that a partial payment had been made. The court found that Yklik established a prima facie case. The central issue was whether Allstate's fee schedule defense was precluded due to its failure to issue a timely denial within 30 days as mandated by Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5. The court ruled that since Allstate waited 56 days to send its denial, it was precluded from raising the fee schedule defense, and therefore, summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff.

No-fault insurancesummary judgmenttimely denialfee schedulepreclusion ruleinsurance lawmedical supplybilling practicespersonal injury protectionassignor
References
19
Case No. SAC 0282439 SAC 0282440
Regular
Jun 09, 2008

PHYLLIS H. DUMONT vs. MISSION LINEN SUPPLY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal of the judge's decision in this case. The WCAB rescinded the judge's February 21, 2008 decision and returned the matter for further proceedings. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the judge's report in reaching this decision.

removalrescindedreturn for further proceedingsWCJ decisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardgranting removalpetition for removalopinion and orderadministrative law judgeself-insured
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1995

Lewis v. Summit Office Supply, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Manhattan Transfer, Inc., was injured by a forklift operated by defendant Vincent Carbone, an employee of Summit Office Supply, Inc. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendants. The defendants asserted an affirmative defense, arguing that workers' compensation was the plaintiff's sole remedy. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, finding that Vincent Carbone was a special employee of Manhattan Transfer, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Vincent Carbone was a coemployee of the plaintiff, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6].

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee LiabilityAffirmative DefenseAppellate Court DecisionForklift AccidentEmployment Relationship
References
2
Case No. ADJ2177218
Regular
Jun 09, 2009

JOEL ALONZO vs. MISSION LINEN SUPPLY, CIGA on Behalf of CREDIT GENERAL in liquidation

This case involves a dispute over reimbursement for medical-legal expenses incurred by the applicant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior order denying these expenses. The WCAB found the original record to be inadequate, lacking stipulations and sufficient evidence to decide the issue. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the prior order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The WCAB also emphasized the need for a prompt resolution given the long pendency of the case and the applicant's injury.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDJOEL ALONZOMISSION LINEN SUPPLYCIGAMEDICAL-LEGAL EXPENSESQUALIFIED MEDICAL EVALUATORSLABOR CODE SECTION 5811RECONSIDERATIONREMOVALFINDINGS AND ORDER
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dilonez v. Fox Linen Service Inc.

Plaintiffs Angel Dilonez and others initiated an action against Fox Linen Service, Inc. and its owner George Sundel, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York labor laws for failing to pay overtime wages. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action, which defendants opposed on several grounds, including the validity of declarations and the scope of the proposed class and notification. The United States Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown granted the motion for conditional certification, finding that plaintiffs met the 'modest factual showing' required to demonstrate a common policy or plan violating the law. The court also issued detailed directives regarding the notification process, including a six-year statute of limitations for state claims, approval for Spanish translation, and posting of the notice at the defendants' workplace. The decision addressed the contents of the notice, disallowing language that might unduly discourage opt-in plaintiffs, and clarified the procedure for returning consent forms to plaintiffs' counsel.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York Labor LawOvertime WagesCollective ActionConditional CertificationWage and Hour DisputeEmployment LawClass Action NoticePlaintiff's Motion Granted
References
38
Case No. ADJ3180323 (VNO 0425253) ADJ3602025 (VNO 0425255) ADJ4336300 (VNO 0429778) ADJ1492342 (VNO 0362819)
Regular
Mar 02, 2016

PAUL NEYER vs. MISSION LINEN SUPPLY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, ARROWPOINT CAPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed well beyond the jurisdictional 20-day limit after the December 16, 2015 Findings and Award. Arrowpoint Capital's Petition for Reconsideration was also dismissed as moot due to a subsequent amendment by the arbitrator addressing their concerns about bill review expenses. The Board found CIGA's petition was also procedurally defective for failing to serve the Workers' Compensation Arbitrator. Therefore, both petitions were dismissed.

California Workers CompensationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMission Linen SupplyCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAArrowpoint CapitalSecurity Insurance Company of HartfordPaul NeyerFindings and AwardPetition for Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tower Insurance v. Mike's Pipe Yard & Building Supply Corp.

An insurer (Plaintiff) filed a motion for summary judgment to disclaim coverage for an underlying personal injury action, citing the insured's (Mike’s Pipe Yard and Building Supply) failure to provide timely notice of an occurrence as stipulated in the liability insurance policy. The insured had initially informed its broker about the incident, assuming the broker acted as the insurer's agent; however, no such principal-agent relationship existed. The trial court initially denied the plaintiff's motion, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the plaintiff's motion and declaring that the plaintiff had no duty to defend or indemnify in the underlying action due to the untimely notification.

Insurance Coverage DisputeTimely Notice ProvisionDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance Broker AgencyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPersonal Injury Action
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02232 [159 AD3d 1321]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Matter of Larosa v. ABC Supply Co., Inc.

Claimant Stephen Larosa, a crane operator, sought workers' compensation benefits for a right knee injury in April 2015. The employer, ABC Supply Company, Inc., and its carrier controverted the claim, arguing it did not arise from employment. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found the injury to be work-related. The employer appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Larosa's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, despite arguments concerning inconsistent accounts, an idiopathic condition, and insufficient medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation ClaimRight Knee InjuryCausally Related InjuryArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityIdiopathic ConditionPreexisting ConditionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 336 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