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

Copeland v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

Plaintiff Vernon Copeland asserted claims of race discrimination and retaliation against Sears, Roebuck and Co. and its employee Margaret Lare. Copeland, an African American service technician, alleged delays in training, wage discrepancies, stand-by duty conflicts, and issues with his service truck, attributing these to racial discrimination. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the race discrimination claims, concluding Copeland failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate pretext for Sears' non-discriminatory business reasons. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding increased micro-management and disciplinary actions taken after Copeland filed internal complaints and his lawsuit. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for November 18, 1998.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFederal Civil ProcedurePrima Facie CasePretextAdverse Employment ActionNew York Executive LawSection 1981
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Rodriguez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

The plaintiff appealed from an order granting summary judgment to defendants Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Black & Decker (US), Inc., in a personal injury action. The plaintiff was injured while using an angle grinder manufactured by Black & Decker and sold by Sears, after modifying it by replacing the original wheel and removing the safety guard. The Supreme Court, Kings County, found that the defendants had established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, concluding the plaintiff was aware of the dangers and warnings were adequate. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, dismissing the appeal from the intermediate order, concurring that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding inadequate warnings or defective design.

Product liabilitySummary judgment affirmedWarning adequacyDesign defectAngle grinder accidentPersonal injury appealManufacturer liabilitySeller liabilityHazard awarenessModified product
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Plaintiff James Brewer sued his former employer, Sears, Roebuck & Company, alleging disability and age discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Brewer suffered a back injury, and upon his return to work, Sears offered him a 'full-time flex' position due to decreased service calls, which he declined, opting for a lay-off and severance. He later applied for another technician position but lost interest when he learned it was also full-time flex and paid less. Sears filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court found that Brewer failed to establish a prima facie case for either ADA or ADEA claims, concluding he was not disabled under the ADA and lacked evidence of age discrimination.

ADAADEADisability DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseEmployment LawWorkers' CompensationHerniated Lumbar DiskPerceived Disability
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. MHP Land Associates

Jose Fernandez, a painter for Sears Roebuck & Co., sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder lacking safety feet while working. He initiated an action under Labor Law § 240 (1) to recover for these injuries. His motion for summary judgment was initially denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the decision was unanimously reversed, and summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs. The appellate court determined that the failure to adequately secure the ladder constituted a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), thereby imposing absolute liability on the defendants for the plaintiff's injuries. The defendants' engineer's affidavit was deemed insufficient to create a factual dispute.

Labor LawLadder FallSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityPersonal InjuryWorkplace SafetyAppellate DecisionReversalUnsecured LadderConstruction Accident
References
4
Case No. ADJ7603706
Regular
Sep 12, 2011

JOSENIA TAN vs. SEARS ROEBUCK & CO, ACE-USA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a $350 sanctions order against Sears Roebuck & Co. The sanctions were imposed by the WCJ for failing to produce wage information and appearing at a hearing. While acknowledging the defendant's failures, the Board found insufficient evidence of willful bad-faith actions or tactics solely intended to cause delay. Therefore, the Board exercised its discretion to rescind the sanctions order, making the defendant's petition for removal moot.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationSanctions OrderRescindedCumulative TraumaIndustrial InjuryWristsElbowsCashier
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roebuck v. Guttman

Plaintiffs alleged that they were defrauded by defendants in the purchase of limited partnership units in Visual Enterprises. Defendants Martin L. Goldstein, Martin A. Halpern, Goldstein & Halpern, Allan T. Cannon, and Allan T. Cannon, P.C. moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, arguing a failure to state fraud with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The court found that plaintiffs did not allege facts supporting an inference that the G & H and Cannon defendants knowingly participated in the fraudulent misstatements or omissions. Additionally, the court determined that claims under section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 were time-barred. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint and directed the entry of a final judgment, certifying it for immediate appeal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) to promote judicial economy.

FraudSecurities FraudLimited PartnershipMotion to DismissRule 9(b)Rule 54(b) CertificationStatute of LimitationsPendent JurisdictionCivil ProcedureMisrepresentation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McRae v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

The defendant appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case. The plaintiff alleged injuries from a fall off a defective ladder at the defendant's store. The Workers' Compensation Board had previously determined that the plaintiff failed to prove the injuries arose from the fall. The appellate court found that collateral estoppel should apply to the Workers' Compensation Board's determination. As the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewLadder FallPremises LiabilityProcedural LawEmployer LiabilityDismissal of Complaint
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2008

Jaworek v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Claimant suffered a knee injury in July 2007 while working for an employer, with a portion of her average weekly wage attributable to concurrent employment. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) directed the employer to pay the full benefits award of $500 per week, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The employer sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, but the WCLJ denied it, citing 2007 amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, stating that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (h) (2) (A) barred such claims for injuries on or after July 1, 2007. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, rejecting the employer's statutory interpretation argument.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementSpecial Disability FundConcurrent EmploymentStatutory InterpretationLegislative Intent2007 AmendmentsAppellate ReviewBenefits AwardFund ClosureNew York Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Newton v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying benefits to a claimant who experienced knee pain during employment. The Board had reversed a WCLJ’s decision, finding no accidental injury or occupational disease causally related to work, crediting medical opinions that found no causal link between the claimant's osteoarthritis and meniscus tear and his work duties. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseCausal RelationshipMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial EvidenceKnee InjuryOsteoarthritisMeniscus TearEmployment-related Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Loiacono v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Claimant suffered a back injury in 1981, and the employer paid initial medical expenses. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a WCLJ decision, concluding that Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (Special Fund for Reopened Cases) was inapplicable because the case was either open or reopened within the statutory period. The employer appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decisions, ruling that the employer's payment of medical expenses constituted an advance payment of compensation, thereby triggering the seven- and three-year timeframes for § 25-a liability. The court further determined that subsequent chiropractic reports for "maintenance care" did not signify a change in the claimant's condition sufficient to reopen the case. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the finding that the Special Fund for Reopened Cases should be liable.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesAdvance Payment of CompensationStatute of LimitationsMedical Treatment as Advance PaymentCase ReopeningChiropractic TreatmentInformal ClaimsBoard Decision ReversalAppellate Review
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 15 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