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

Anani v. CVS RX SERVICES, INC.

Salah Anani, a former pharmacist, sued CVS RX Services, Inc. alleging unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Anani, classified as a bi-weekly salaried pharmacist, received a base salary and additional premium pay for hours exceeding 44 per week. He contended he was misclassified as exempt and was entitled to time-and-a-half overtime. CVS argued Anani was properly exempt under the FLSA's professional and highly compensated employee provisions. The court determined Anani met the 'learned professional' duties test and the central issue was the salary basis test. The court concluded that Anani's compensation scheme, which included a guaranteed base salary and premium pay for additional hours, adhered to FLSA salary basis requirements and associated regulations. Consequently, the court granted CVS's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing Anani's complaint.

FLSA exemptionOvertime compensationSalary basis testHighly compensated employee exemptionPharmacist exemptionProfessional employeeSummary judgmentNew York Labor LawPremium payWage and hour
References
42
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05045 [140 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2016

Privette v. Precision Elevator

Eric Privette, an employee of Sapir Realty Management, was injured in an elevator maintained by Precision Elevator. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted summary judgment to several defendants including the building owner and managing agent. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this ruling, denying summary judgment as to the Sapir Organization while affirming it for other defendants. The court found that Sapir Realty Management and the building owner operated as a single entity for workers' compensation purposes, thus entitling them to protections under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Additionally, a former owner, 260/261 Madison Equities Corp., was not held liable for conditions after conveying the property.

Elevator accidentsummary judgment reversalWorkers' Compensation Law § 11premises liabilitycorporate identityowner liabilityappellate reviewmanaging agent liabilityFirst DepartmentNew York law
References
5
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07082 [143 AD3d 639]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2016

Privette v. Precision El.

Plaintiff Eric Privette was allegedly injured in an elevator maintained by defendant Precision Elevator within a building owned by 260-261 Madison Avenue, LLC, and managed by Sapir Realty Management (formerly Zar Realty Management). The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted summary judgment to 260-261 Madison Avenue LLC, 260/261 Madison Equities Corp., the Sapir Organization, and Sapir Realty Management, dismissing the complaint against them. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision. The court held that Zar Realty and 260-261 Madison Avenue, LLC, as plaintiff's employers, were entitled to Workers' Compensation Law § 11 benefits. Additionally, it found that 260/261 Madison Equities Corp. was not liable due to having conveyed the property prior to the accident, and "The Sapir Organization" was deemed not a viable defendant as it was an informal name for other dismissed corporate entities.

Elevator accidentSummary judgmentWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer liabilityPremises liabilityFormer owner liabilityCorporate entityAppellantRespondentAffirmation
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02914 [217 AD3d 1024]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

Matter of Nguyen v. CVS RX Servs., Inc.

Claimant Hung Nguyen alleged discrimination and retaliation by his employer, CVS RX Services, Inc., after taking paid family leave, citing reduced hours, decreased pay raises, and loss of benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found in Nguyen's favor, ordering reinstatement and back wages. The employer failed to timely appeal and its subsequent application to rehear or reopen the claim was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board, citing a lack of new material evidence and inadequate justification for repeated non-appearance at hearings. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the employer's request.

Workers' Compensation LawPaid Family LeaveDiscriminationRetaliationAppellate ReviewBoard's DiscretionRehearing ApplicationReopening ClaimDue ProcessNotice Requirements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bolds v. Precision Health, Inc.

The claimant, a traveling x-ray technician for Precision Health, Inc., was injured in a 1996 car accident during employment. A WCLJ established the claim for injuries, awarded weekly compensation, and ordered medical expense coverage, which the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. Subsequently, the WCLJ denied the employer's request for further record development regarding a 1999 accident and authorized breast reduction surgery for the claimant's back symptoms, again affirmed by the Board. Precision Health appealed, arguing the Board improperly denied reopening the record and vacating prior awards after April 1999, and challenged the merits of benefits and surgery authorization. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding its refusal to allow further development was not arbitrary and capricious, and that substantial medical evidence supported the continued causally-related partial disability and authorization for breast reduction surgery.

Workers' CompensationCar AccidentEmployment InjuryCausally-Related InjuryPartial DisabilityMedical ExpensesBreast Reduction SurgeryAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
6
Case No. ADJ6906050 ADJ6906051
Regular
Jan 07, 2020

IRMA OCHOA vs. ALUMINUM PRECISION PRODUCTS, XL INSURANCE; INDEPENDENT FORGE, REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, c/o BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

This case affirmed a previous award finding Aluminum Precision Products liable for the applicant's workers' compensation claim. Although symptoms manifested at both employers, Labor Code section 5500.5 dictates liability falls solely on the employer with the last year of injurious exposure. The Appeals Board adopted the judge's report, incorporating its reasoning to support this conclusion. Therefore, the prior award against Aluminum Precision Products was upheld.

Labor Code section 5500.5last year of injurious exposureemployer liabilityworkers' compensationReconsiderationOpinion and DecisionJoint Findings Award and OrderAFFIRMEDWCJ reportfactual and legal issues
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04187
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

Matter of Rydstrom v. Precision Carpentry of Westchester, Inc.

Claimant Michael Rydstrom appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits due to untimely notice of injury. Rydstrom, a carpenter, allegedly sustained injuries when a steel cable fell on him in July 2014 but failed to report the incident to his supervisor or seek medical care for several months. The Board found that Rydstrom did not provide timely written notice of injury within 30 days as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 18. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant failed to establish that the employer had actual knowledge of the accident or did not suffer any prejudice from the delay. The court noted that the delay aggravated the injury and frustrated the employer's investigation efforts, and further rejected the claimant's contention regarding the employer's failure to timely controvert the claim because the case was never indexed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 18Timely NoticeInjury ReportEmployer PrejudiceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionClaim DenialFactual FindingsSubstantial EvidenceClaimant Responsibilities
References
6
Case No. ADJ2906378
Regular
May 24, 2011

NORMA ALONSO vs. PRECISION CAST PARTS CORPORATION AKA AVIBANK MANUFACTURING, INC.; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves Norma Alonso's workers' compensation claim against Precision Cast Parts Corporation and Sedgwick Claims Management Services. Alonso filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal, seeking to overturn a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the administrative law judge's report. Ultimately, the Board denied both reconsideration and removal, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge's report.

ReconsiderationRemovalPetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDeniedPrecision Cast Parts CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ2906378LAO 0881297
References
0
Case No. ADJ7217859, ADJ7544106
Regular
Oct 21, 2014

YOLANDA MARTINEZ vs. MASS PRECISION, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, SCI @ BALANCE STAFFING SERVICE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves applicant Yolanda Martinez claiming industrial injuries (lumbar spine, right shoulder, psyche) from her employment at Mass Precision. Defendant Zurich North America, insurer for SCI @ Balance Staffing Service, contested liability for the psyche injury, arguing applicant's employment by SCI was less than the six-month statutory minimum. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of joint and several liability, holding that prior employment at the same worksite with dual employers counts towards the six-month requirement for psyche injury claims. This decision was based on the principle that the six-month rule aims to prevent claims from routine stress in new employment, a purpose not served when an employee has a longer-term relationship with the worksite.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma InjuryApportionmentPsychiatric InjuryLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Six Month Employment RequirementDual EmploymentGeneral EmployerSpecial Employer
References
3
Case No. 534702
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Hung Nguyen

Claimant Hung Nguyen, a former CVS RX Services, Inc. employee, alleged discrimination and retaliation after taking paid family leave (PFL), including reduced hours and a denied pay raise. He filed a PFL discrimination/retaliation complaint in December 2019. Despite multiple notices sent to its Rhode Island and New York addresses, the employer failed to appear at three scheduled hearings. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the employer violated PFL law and Workers' Compensation Law § 120, ordering reinstatement, back wages, and restoration of benefits. The employer's subsequent application to rehear or reopen the claim, asserting lack of notice and new evidence, was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as the employer was properly notified and failed to provide new material evidence or sufficient justification for its non-appearance.

PFL DiscriminationRetaliationWorkers' Compensation BoardDue ProcessNoticeAbuse of DiscretionRehearing ApplicationReopening ClaimEmployer LiabilityWage Loss
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 136 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