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
Dec 21, 2001

Yerry v. Pizza Hut of Southeast Kansas

Toby Yerry sued his former employer, Pizza Hut of Southeast Kansas, Inc., and shift manager Charles White, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII and New York Executive Law, along with state common law claims. Yerry claimed White forced him to spank himself in a locked restroom. The court found that while the incident was severe enough to constitute a hostile work environment, Pizza Hut was not liable as it took prompt corrective action by suspending White immediately. Furthermore, Yerry's retaliation claim failed due to a lack of tangible adverse employment action, and White could not be held liable under New York Executive Law for aiding and abetting since no discrimination by the employer was found. Consequently, all federal and state law causes of action against Pizza Hut and White were dismissed, with remaining state law claims dismissed without prejudice.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York Executive LawEmployer LiabilityQuid Pro Quo HarassmentAssault and BatteryFalse Imprisonment
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2001

Smith v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc.

An actor sustained personal injuries while filming a television commercial, leading to an action against BBD&O, Pizza Hut, and Headquarters. The claims against BBD&O and Pizza Hut were dismissed via summary judgment, as Headquarters, an independent contractor, was deemed responsible for the production, personnel, and equipment. The court granted Headquarters' motion to amend its answer, allowing it to assert a workers' compensation defense based on the potential for Headquarters being a special employer. However, Headquarters' request for summary judgment based on this defense was denied, as a factual issue remained regarding the plaintiff's employment status. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed both the earlier order and the judgment.

Personal InjuryTelevision ProductionActor InjuryIndependent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial Employment DoctrineAppellate DivisionEmployer Immunity
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manhattan Pizza Hut, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

Chief Judge Cooke dissents from the majority's decision, which reversed an order finding Manhattan Pizza Hut, Inc.'s anti-nepotism rule discriminatory. The rule prohibits employees from supervising relatives, including spouses, thereby discriminating against married persons based solely on their marital status. Cooke argues that this policy violates Executive Law Section 296, which forbids employment discrimination based on marital status, as it targets married individuals while overlooking other close personal relationships. He emphasizes that this discrimination can discourage marriage or encourage divorce and impede employment opportunities, thus undermining the protected status of marriage. Cooke concludes that the rule is not a bona fide occupational qualification and votes to affirm the Appellate Division's order, which presumably ruled against Pizza Hut.

Anti-nepotism policyEmployment discriminationMarital status discriminationExecutive Law Section 296Bona fide occupational qualificationAppellate reviewDissenting opinionEmployee rightsWorkplace conflictFamily status
References
6
Case No. ADJ17464637
Regular
Oct 28, 2025

Alisher Suliemanov vs. Pizza Hut, Pizza Hut, Southern California Pizza Co., Athens Administrators

The case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant after an Order Approving a Compromise and Release (OACR) was executed and later amended by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ rescinded the original OACR and issued an amended one within the 15-day period allowed by WCAB Rule 10961(c). Consequently, the Appeals Board determined that no further action was necessary on the Petition for Reconsideration because the disputed order no longer existed. Despite the WCJ preparing a Report and Recommendation, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as moot.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseRescinded OrderAmended OrderJurisdictionWCJ ReportWithdrawal RequestMoot PetitionWCAB Rule 10961
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Connor v. Midiria

Michaeline O’Connor and her husband sought derivative and compensatory damages for injuries Michaeline sustained while employed by Pizza Hut, where she was intentionally locked in a walk-in cooler by a coemployee and subsequently fell. Defendants, Kane (manager) and Pizza Hut, moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by a Workers’ Compensation Board decision in O'Connor's favor and that plaintiffs failed to state an intentional tort claim. The appellate court held that the Workers’ Compensation Board's prior determination of accidental injury was binding and conclusive, establishing workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy, even though O'Connor had refused to accept benefits. Consequently, the civil action alleging intentional injury was barred. The court reversed the lower court's order, granted summary judgment to the defendants, and dismissed the complaint.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyIntentional TortRes JudicataSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityCoemployee ConductAccidental InjuryBoard DeterminationCivil Action Barred
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nick's Brick Oven Pizza, Inc. v. Excelsior Insurance

Nick’s Brick Oven Pizza, Inc. sought a declaratory judgment against its general liability insurance carriers to compel them to defend and indemnify it in an underlying personal injury action involving Travis Schmidt, an alleged temporary worker. The carriers denied coverage based on a policy exclusion for "insured" employees, but the policy had an exception for "temporary workers." The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nick's Pizza, finding Schmidt was a temporary worker and the policy's term "furnished" was ambiguous, which was construed against the insurer. The appellate court affirmed this decision, mandating the insurance carriers to defend and indemnify Nick’s Brick Oven Pizza, Inc. in the underlying action.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentPolicy InterpretationTemporary WorkerAmbiguity in ContractDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment
References
11
Case No. ADJ11608819
Regular
Mar 29, 2023

MINERVA DE BARTOLO vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PIZZA COMPANY dba PIZZA HUT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Appeals Board overturned the WCJ's decision, finding that the applicant did sustain an injury AOE/COE to her lumbar spine, despite the WCJ's credibility findings against the applicant. The Board determined that the applicant's claim was not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) due to existing medical records showing a lumbar spine issue prior to termination and the date of knowledge of industrial causation occurring after her employment ended. The issue of injury to other body parts and all other issues were deferred.

AOE/COEWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactOrderWCJLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)PQMECausationSubstantial Evidence
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1998

Lopez v. Tarana

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in three related actions concerning wrongful death and personal injuries stemming from a car accident. An intoxicated employee, Cynthia Tarana, after drinking at an unofficial work event, caused an accident resulting in one death and two injuries. The Supreme Court initially found Tarana negligent and her employer, C & H Pizza Corp., and supervisor, Denise LaBarbera, liable under the 'social host' statute, awarding damages to the plaintiffs Annette Lopez, Kara Kissane, and Catherine Rubino. The appellate court reversed the judgment, citing errors in determining the supervisor's scope of employment, the omission of fault apportionment for the employer and driver, and the award of damages to Annette Lopez without proof of economic loss. Consequently, the complaint seeking damages for Annette Lopez personally was dismissed, and a new trial was granted for the remaining causes of action.

Wrongful deathPersonal injuryVehicular manslaughterIntoxicated drivingSocial host liabilityScope of employmentJury verdictDamagesAppellate reviewReversal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vasquez v. McGeever

A 13-year-old plaintiff was stabbed at Monument Pizza, Inc., owned by Michael Roods, by defendant George McGeever. The plaintiff alleged negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 130 for employing a minor. Defendants Monument Pizza, Inc. and Michael Roods moved for summary judgment, arguing they did not breach any duty, that the plaintiff was not an employee, or that workers' compensation was the sole remedy if she was an employee. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. The appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that an employee's remedy for injury during employment is limited to workers' compensation, regardless of the legality of the employment, and that the Workers’ Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine if the plaintiff was an employee under Labor Law § 2 (7).

Workers' CompensationChild LaborNegligenceSummary JudgmentPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityEmployment LawIntentional Tort
References
6
Case No. ADJ845263 (ANA 0397766)
Regular
Feb 19, 2015

JORGE LOPEZ vs. PIZZA HUT, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jorge Lopez's Petition for Reconsideration. The petitioner withdrew their reconsideration request because the parties had reached a Compromise and Release agreement. This settlement rendered the reconsideration process moot.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseWCJ decisionapplicantdefendantPizza HutAce American Insurance CompanyGallagher BassettADJ845263
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 57 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