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. ADJ8546247
Regular
Sep 22, 2014

CHERYL VICKERY vs. SAVEMART SUPERMARKETS

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant, SaveMart Supermarkets, sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's award finding applicant sustained industrial injury and required future medical treatment. SaveMart argued the Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction due to the applicant's prior Independent Medical Review (IMR) of a denied treatment authorization. The Board denied reconsideration, primarily because SaveMart's own Utilization Review denial was untimely under Labor Code section 4610(g)(1). The Board also noted procedural defects in SaveMart's petition for reconsideration.

WCABCHERYL VICKERYSAVEMART SUPERMARKETSADJ8546247OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONindustrial injuryneckleft shouldergrocery checkerfuture medical treatment
References
0
Case No. ADJ9008198
Regular
Jan 03, 2018

Robert Imrie vs. SaveMart Supermarkets

The Appeals Board denied SaveMart Supermarkets' Petition for Removal because the employer failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) order to further develop the record. The WCJ found that the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) report was not substantial evidence as it relied on facts that were proven untrue during the hearing. The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to the employer.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDenial of RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Qualified Medical Examiner (QME)Psychiatric InjuryOrthopedic Injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ2505068
Regular
May 28, 2013

MARIA FREITAS vs. SAVEMART SUPERMARKETS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied SaveMart Supermarkets' petition for reconsideration of an award finding the applicant's right leg injury to be a compensable consequence of her industrial back injury. The WCAB adopted the judge's report, which found the applicant's testimony credible, supported by medical opinions noting prior leg weakness and difficulty walking. The judge found that a contemporaneous surgeon's report, which stated the applicant missed a step, was less persuasive than the applicant's consistent testimony and supporting medical evidence. The WCAB upheld the judge's credibility determination and the finding that the leg injury was causally related to the admitted back injury.

Compensable Consequence InjuryCredibility FindingWCJ Report AdoptionTibia FractureCumulative Back InjuryMechanism of InjuryLower Extremity WeaknessAntalgic GaitSworn TestimonyMedical Opinion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Double Green Produce, Inc. v. Forum Supermarket Inc.

Plaintiff Double Green Produce, Inc. sued Defendants Forum Supermarket Inc. and Hong Wen Cai for failure to pay for wholesale produce under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) and other claims. After Defendants defaulted, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. Although initially recommended for denial due to jurisdictional concerns, the Court allowed Plaintiff to submit additional information. Upon review, the Court found Forum to be a PACA 'dealer' and that Plaintiff had preserved its trust rights. The Court determined Defendants' default was willful and that Defendant Cai was personally liable for dissipating trust assets. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding $23,080.75 in damages, $5579.82 in prejudgment interest, and $4074.25 in attorneys' fees, totaling $32,734.82.

PACAPerishable Agricultural CommoditiesDefault JudgmentBreach of ContractStatutory TrustFiduciary DutyInterstate CommerceWholesale ProduceDamages AwardPrejudgment Interest
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Farm Workers National Union v. Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc.

Plaintiff United Farm Workers National Union (UFW) sued defendant Sloan’s Supermarkets, Inc., for misusing its Aztec Eagle certification mark, alleging violations of federal trademark and unfair competition laws. UFW sought a preliminary injunction, claiming irreparable harm to its consumer boycott of non-UFW lettuce and public deception. The court acknowledged instances of non-UFW lettuce being sold under the UFW mark but found them to be due to employee error, not deliberate malice. Sloan’s demonstrated good faith in addressing the issue. The court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that UFW did not show immediate, irreparable injury strong enough to justify such an extraordinary remedy, and that an injunction would cause considerable harm to Sloan's business reputation given its good faith efforts.

trademark infringementunfair competitionpreliminary injunctionconsumer boycottUFWAztec Eaglegood faithirreparable injuryjudicial discretionlabor dispute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2010

Blyer v. ONE STOP KOSHER SUPERMARKET, INC.

Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of NLRB Region 29, petitioned the District Court for interim relief against One Stop Kosher Supermarket, Inc. under 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). The Director sought an order compelling One Stop to bargain with Local 338, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, after One Stop failed to honor a recognition agreement. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found the recognition agreement binding. The District Court granted the petition, finding reasonable cause for unfair labor practices and irreparable harm to the Union's collective bargaining rights, ordering One Stop to provide information and bargain, but stipulating that any agreement not be implemented until the NLRB's final decision.

National Labor Relations BoardUnfair Labor PracticesInterim InjunctionCollective BargainingUnion RecognitionLabor LawDistrict CourtSection 10(j)Employer-Union RelationsMandatary Injunction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonacci v. Treffiletti Supermarkets, Inc.

Plaintiff, a meat cutter, sustained finger lacerations while operating a band saw during the course of his employment in July 1989. He subsequently filed for and received workers’ compensation benefits. Alleging negligence and strict products liability, plaintiff commenced a personal injury action against Treffiletti Supermarkets, Inc. and Hobart Manufacturing Company, Inc. Defendant Treffiletti Supermarkets, Inc. moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy was through workers' compensation benefits. The Supreme Court denied this motion, citing a factual dispute regarding the plaintiff's actual employer. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the Workers’ Compensation Board had identified Treffiletti as an employer, which barred the plaintiff's action against Treffiletti under the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court clarified that the involvement of multiple employers did not negate these provisions. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded to Treffiletti Supermarkets, Inc., and the complaint against it was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityBand Saw AccidentCo-employmentAppellate ReviewCPLR 3212Workers' Compensation LawNegligence
References
4
Case No. ADJ6777284, ADJ6777302, ADJ7465280
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

DEBBIE DAY vs. ALBERTSONS, SEDWICK CMS

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved three cumulative trauma injuries sustained by applicant Debbie Day while employed by Albertsons and SaveMart Supermarkets. The arbitrator issued a Findings, Award, and Order, and subsequently a Report on Petition for Reconsideration. The Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, adopting the arbitrator's report which clarified that SaveMart/Pegasus's claims for contribution and reimbursement in earlier injury years were moot as their liability stemmed solely from the 2009 injury. The arbitrator's Opinion on Decision was amended to reflect this clarification regarding SaveMart/Pegasus's sole liability for the 2009 injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's ReportAmended OpinionCumulative Trauma InjuriesDate of InjuryContributionReimbursementSaveMart SupermarketsAlbertsons
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaplin v. Pathmark Supermarkets

This case addresses a motion by defendants, including Supermarkets General Corp., for a protective order to vacate the plaintiff Mimi Chaplin's notice for discovery and inspection of accident reports. Mimi Chaplin sought these reports after sustaining personal injuries from a fall at the defendant's premises. The court, presided over by Justice James F. Niehoff, analyzed the newly enacted CPLR 3101 (g), which mandates full disclosure of accident reports prepared in the regular course of business. The court found that the accident report in question was prepared in Supermarkets General Corp.'s regular course of business, rendering it discoverable regardless of its potential use in litigation, thus denying the defendants' motion.

DiscoveryProtective OrderAccident ReportsCPLR 3101(g)Litigation PreparationRegular Course of BusinessPersonal InjuryNegligenceDisclosureEvidence
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 80 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