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

Arcadi v. Nestle Foods Corp.

This class action, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), involved employees and former employees of Nestle Foods Corporation who sought overtime compensation for time spent changing into and out of mandatory uniforms. The defendant, Nestle, moved for summary judgment, arguing that this time was non-compensable based on an established "custom or practice" under their collective bargaining agreement, as permitted by FLSA § 203(o). Plaintiffs contended they never explicitly agreed to forgo such compensation. The court examined prior case law on Section 203(o) and found compelling similarities, noting that the employees effectively bargained away their right to compensation for clothes-changing time in exchange for other concessions. Consequently, the court granted Nestle's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Collective Bargaining AgreementOvertime CompensationUniform PolicyClothes-Changing TimeSummary JudgmentClass Action LawsuitCustom or PracticeLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ross v. Nestle Prepared Foods Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Inc., sought damages for injuries sustained while cleaning a machine at work. The Supreme Court dismissed the amended complaint against Nestle, citing the exclusivity provisions of Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the 'dual capacity doctrine' should apply since Nestle designed the machine for its employees' exclusive use. The appellate court rejected this contention, referencing prior case law, and unanimously affirmed the lower court's order of dismissal without costs.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityDual Capacity DoctrinePersonal Injury ClaimIndustrial AccidentAppellate Court AffirmanceEmployer LiabilityMachine SafetyNew York Workers' CompensationMotion to Dismiss GrantedEmployee Rights
References
3
Case No. CA 12-01554
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2013

SMITH, PAUL J. v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY

Paul J. Smith, a plaintiff, sued Nestle Purina Petcare Company (Nestle) for injuries sustained after slipping and falling in a grain silo during a construction project. Nestle then initiated a third-party action against E.E. Austin & Son, Inc. (Austin), Smith's employer. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from Nestle and Austin. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Nestle and Austin on Labor Law § 240 (1) and most of § 241 (6) claims, finding the injury unrelated to ladder use and certain regulations inapplicable. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2), the Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims, and the contractual indemnification claim between Nestle and Austin due to unresolved factual issues regarding Nestle's negligence.

Labor LawWorkplace InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationAppellate DivisionPremises LiabilityNegligenceSlip and FallGrain Silo
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suarez v. Food Emporium, Inc.

Plaintiff, a job coach for Casita Unida Clubhouse, was injured after slipping on a wet floor while filling in for a transitional employee at defendant Food Emporium. Although he received workers' compensation benefits, plaintiff also commenced a personal injury action against Food Emporium. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was barred because plaintiff was a 'special employee' of Food Emporium. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed. The court determined, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was a special employee due to Food Emporium's control over his work, thus dismissing the complaint.

Summary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarPersonal InjuryControl and DirectionAppellate ReviewDeli DepartmentJob CoachEmployer LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of E.E. Austin & Son, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated grain dust and a hose while working on a construction project at a grain silo owned by Nestle Purina Petcare Company. Plaintiff commenced an action against Nestle Purina Petcare Company, alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. Nestle, in turn, filed a third-party action against Austin for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from both Nestle and Austin, leading to this appeal and cross-appeal. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, granting summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and partially dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (except for the part based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2)). However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 claim, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification, citing triable issues of fact.

Labor LawCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationGrain silo accidentConstruction project injuryTripping hazardPremises liabilitySupervisory controlIndemnity provision
References
27
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. 2023-00083 (Index No. 11032/18)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2024

Miolan v. Milmar Food Group, LLC

Alquidania Miolan appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which granted summary judgment to Milmar Food Group, LLC, and Milmar Food Group II, LLC. Miolan sought damages for personal injuries from a slip and fall at a facility operated by the Milmar defendants, where she was employed through a staffing agency. The Milmar defendants successfully argued that Miolan's claims were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, asserting they were her 'special employer.' The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Milmar defendants had established, prima facie, their status as Miolan's special employer. Consequently, the court concluded that Miolan's claims were barred by the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployerSummary JudgmentPersonal InjurySlip and FallAppellate ReviewExclusivity ProvisionStaffing AgencyOrange CountyPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falkowski v. Krasdale Foods, Inc.

This case involves appeals and a cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County. Commercial Personnel Services, Inc., Commercial Transportation Group, and Commercial Logistics, Inc. appealed parts of the order that granted summary judgment to Krasdale Foods, Inc. on claims of contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. Krasdale Foods, Inc. cross-appealed the granting of the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a negligent entrustment cause of action, and the denial of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order regarding both the appeals and the cross-appeal. This decision upholds the lower court's rulings on contractual indemnification, breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and the allowance of the amended complaint for negligent entrustment, while denying Krasdale's motion to dismiss the complaint due to unresolved issues of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceNegligent EntrustmentAppellate ProcedureThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmed Order
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 1985

Caporino v. General Foods Corp.

Gabriel Caporino, an employee of General Foods Corporation, disappeared in March 1974. His wife, the claimant, filed for workers' compensation death benefits, but the case was initially closed. Five years later, the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester County declared Caporino legally dead as of March 7, 1979, based on his unexplained absence. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently reopened the case and awarded benefits using the 1979 death date. The employer appealed, arguing that the date of death should be the date of disappearance in 1974. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing EPTL 2-1.7 (a) which supports the presumption of death five years after an unexplained absence.

Workers' CompensationPresumption of DeathDisappearanceDate of DeathEPTL 2-1.7Appellate ReviewEmployer AppealDeath BenefitsUnexplained AbsenceLegal Presumption
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1999

White v. White Rose Food

This action, brought under Section 301 of the LMRA, arises from the disbursement of settlement funds after a plant closing and a labor strike involving White Rose Food and Local No. 138. Plaintiffs, former employees, contended that an 'Amendment to Settlement Agreement' which deducted employer payroll taxes from a $1,500,000 settlement fund was entered into without required union membership ratification. The court found that Local 138's leadership acted in bad faith and arbitrarily by concealing this amendment and its financial impact from members, thereby breaching its duty of fair representation. Consequently, the court held the defendant White Rose liable due to its collusion with the union leadership in this concealment. Judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs for the deducted amount plus prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees were also awarded.

Duty of Fair RepresentationUnion RatificationSettlement AgreementPayroll Tax DeductionsBreach of ContractConcealmentBad Faith ConductApparent AuthorityExhaustion of Administrative RemediesAttorneys' Fees
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 502 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