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. ADJ6472001
Regular
May 29, 2019

JAIME QUEZADA, JR. vs. NEIL JONES FOOD COMPANY DBA TOMATEK, SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Jaime Quezada, Jr. against Neil Jones Food Company (Toma-Tek) and its insurer. The applicant initially received an award for permanent total disability and further medical treatment for back, leg, psyche, and hypertension injuries. Following a petition for reconsideration by the defendant, the parties submitted Stipulations With Request for Award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) approved these stipulations, rescinding the prior award and issuing a new award for permanent partial disability (63%) and further medical treatment, resolving lien claims and approving the attorneys' fee.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJaime Quezada Jr.Neil Jones Food CompanySafety National Insurance CompanyCannon Cochran ConcordADJ6472001ReconsiderationStipulations With Request for AwardAdministrative Law JudgeHypertension
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Ass'n of Publishers' Employees, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co.

Plaintiffs, the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees, Inc. (IAPE) and ten Canadian employees, sued defendant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The plaintiffs claimed that Dow Jones violated its fiduciary obligations by changing the Profit-Sharing Retirement Plan's benefit allocation formula, which resulted in reduced benefits for Canadian employees due to currency conversion. Dow Jones argued it was not a fiduciary for this specific act or that the action was not a breach, asserting the right to amend plan contributions. The court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, found that Dow Jones's fiduciary duties under ERISA did not extend to the method of calculating employer contributions or modifying non-accrued benefits. The court concluded that both the Plan provisions and ERISA allowed prospective changes in contributions by the employer, and therefore, Dow Jones had not breached any fiduciary duty. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

ERISAFiduciary DutyProfit-Sharing PlanBenefit AllocationSummary JudgmentNon-Accrued BenefitsPlan AmendmentEmployer ContributionsCanadian EmployeesDistrict Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reese v. Sysco Food Services-Albany

The claimant, injured in 2007 while working for a food service company, initially received temporary partial disability payments for back and left hamstring injuries. A consequential injury to his right fifth metacarpal was later added to the claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the claimant voluntarily removed himself from the labor market in May 2010 by not returning to a light duty assignment despite medical clearance. After further injuries and employment termination in 2012, the claimant sought an award for reduced earnings, arguing his current job was less demanding. Both the WCLJ and the Board denied this request, ruling that his reduction in earnings was not causally related to his compensable disability, a decision which was affirmed on appeal due to substantial evidence.

Reduced earningsVoluntary removal from labor marketLight duty assignmentCausally related disabilityWorkers' compensation appealBack injuryLeft lower extremity injuryRight fifth metacarpal fractureLeft knee problemsMedical clearance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jacobs v. Dellwood Foods

Claimant, a truck driver for Dellwood Foods, was injured when a company truck ran over his foot while he was walking to the company parking lot after purchasing lunch. Initially, the Workers' Compensation Board awarded compensation, but later rescinded it, finding the accident not to be in the course of employment. Dellwood Foods and its carrier appealed this reversal. The court analyzed whether the accident, occurring on a public sidewalk, fell within the "gray area" of employment, considering the presence of a Dellwood truck as a special hazard and the claimant's normal route. The court found both elements present, concluding the accident was compensable. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision that denied compensation and reinstated the original awards made to the claimant.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentGray Area DoctrineSpecial HazardRoute to WorkPublic Sidewalk InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard ReversalJurisdictional ReviewAccident Compensability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1982

Claim of Sullivan v. Zerwick Food Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the effective date of an insurance policy cancellation. The claimant was injured while employed by Zerwick Food Corporation, which was insured by St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. The Board found the policy cancellation effective April 10, 1978, having complied with subdivision 5 of section 54 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Uninsured Employers Fund appealed, citing the necessity of strict compliance with cancellation notice requirements. The court, after reviewing the notice and testimony, affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the April 10, 1978 cancellation date.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance Policy CancellationNotice RequirementsStrict ComplianceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewUninsured Employers FundPolicy Effective DateWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionNew York Law
References
2
Case No. 73 Civ. 1329, 73 Civ. 2141
Regular Panel Decision

Ward Foods, Inc. v. Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union, AFL-CIO

The plaintiffs, Ward Foods, Inc. and Ward Baking Company, Inc., initiated two actions seeking a declaratory judgment that no valid arbitration agreement existed with the defendant, Local 50, under the National Labor Relations Act and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The defendant responded with a general denial and petitioned the court to refer the dispute to arbitration. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine the existence of an arbitration agreement. It was determined that the 1970/72 collective bargaining agreement, which included an arbitration clause, had been validly terminated by the union on September 30, 1972, through a 60-day notice. Consequently, issues that arose after this termination date, such as severance pay and welfare/pension fund contributions, were not subject to the lapsed arbitration agreement. The court also clarified that oral agreements were insufficient to compel arbitration, emphasizing the statutory requirement for a written agreement. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment, confirming the absence of a written contract compelling arbitration, and denied the defendant's petition.

National Labor Relations ActArbitration AgreementCollective BargainingContract TerminationDeclaratory JudgmentLabor DisputeWritten Agreement RequirementOral Agreement EnforceabilitySeverance Pay DisputePension Fund Contributions
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Employees' Retirement System v. Dole Food Co.

The New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) sought a preliminary injunction to compel Dole Food Company, Inc. (Dole) to include NYCERS’ shareholder proposal regarding a health care committee in its proxy materials. Dole argued the proposal fell under exceptions for ordinary business operations, insignificant relationship, and being beyond its power to effectuate, as per SEC Rule 14a-8(c). The court, presided over by District Judge Conboy, analyzed each of Dole's arguments. The court found that Dole failed to prove the proposal related to ordinary business operations or had an insignificant relationship to its business, especially considering the potentially large financial implications of health care costs. Furthermore, the court disagreed that the proposal was beyond Dole's power to effectuate, as it merely requested a study. Concluding that NYCERS demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, the court granted the injunction, ordering Dole to include the proposal.

Shareholder ProposalProxy SolicitationPreliminary InjunctionCorporate GovernanceSEC Rule 14a-8Ordinary Business OperationsHealth Care ReformEmployee BenefitsIrreparable HarmShareholder Rights
References
27
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03157
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Jones v. Burrell Orchards, Inc.

The case involves Paulette Jones, widow of Roy Jones, appealing a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Roy Jones suffered a work injury in 1996, resulting in permanent total disability, with benefits paid until his death in 2017. Paulette Jones filed a death benefits claim and sought an upward adjustment to the average weekly wage and reimbursement for home health care services provided to her late husband. The Board denied these requests, citing the doctrine of laches. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision regarding laches, finding the delay in asserting rights was explained by the decedent's lack of representation and conflicting wage evidence. The court concluded that the Board's application of laches was improper, modifying the decision and granting the motion to reopen the injury claim.

Workers' Compensation LawLaches DoctrineAverage Weekly Wage ModificationDeath BenefitsReopening ClaimPermanent Total DisabilityAppellate ReviewHome Health Care ReimbursementSpinal Cord InjuryEmployer-Employee Dispute
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Jones

This case addresses a motion by the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by Defendant Jones. Jones was initially sued by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (H&H) for $2,370, representing a six-day hospital stay. Jones then sought indemnification from the Commissioner, asserting eligibility for Medicaid and that an H&H-submitted claim for benefits was not honored. The Commissioner sought dismissal on grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and constituted an impermissible collateral attack. The court denied the motion, finding it unclear that the city agency played no role in benefit administration, citing that the Statute of Limitations for indemnification runs from when the party is compelled to pay, and noting the lack of evidence that Jones received notice of a claim denial.

MedicaidIndemnificationThird-Party ActionMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsSocial ServicesHospital BillingGovernment LiabilityHealthcare CostsCity Agency
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 1991

Gold v. Local Union No. 888

Leonard Gold, an employee for 29 years, was terminated by John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company following accusations of theft from a policyholder. Gold denied the allegations, attributing them to the policyholder's senility. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Local Union No. 888, UFCW-AFL-CIO, represented Gold through the grievance process but ultimately withdrew their intent to arbitrate after an allegedly inadequate investigation by union official Andre Henault. Gold filed an action alleging breach of collective bargaining agreement by the Company and breach of the duty of fair representation by the union. The court denied John Hancock's motion for summary judgment, finding sufficient facts for a jury to infer the union handled Gold's grievance arbitrarily. Additionally, the court granted the union's motion to dismiss John Hancock's cross-claim, which was filed after the union settled with Gold, ruling it was barred.

duty of fair representationsummary judgmentgrievance processarbitrationcollective bargaining agreementwrongful terminationlabor lawunion settlementcross-claimfederal civil procedure
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 8,305 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