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. ADJ1169225 (STK 0210283)
Regular
Sep 28, 2009

KRISTIN PYLE (Deceased) vs. SCHENONE SPECIALTY FOODS, dba CHOCOHOLICS DIVINE, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition for reconsideration in the case of Kristin Pyle (deceased) v. Schenone Specialty Foods and Truck Insurance Exchange. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in their decision. The order denying reconsideration was filed on September 28, 2009.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedAdministrative Law JudgeSCHENONE SPECIALTY FOODSCHOCAHOLICS DIVINETRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGEDeceased ApplicantKristine PyleCase Number ADJ1169225
References
0
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03519
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

Matter of Reyes Bonilla v. XL Specialty Ins.

Claimants Jose Reyes Bonilla and Marvin Reyes Bonilla, carpenters, were involved in a motor vehicle accident while commuting to a job site in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, in an employer-provided van. They filed workers' compensation claims, which were established against XL Specialty Insurance by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ). XL Specialty appealed, arguing its policy did not cover commuting injuries and that it was not the proper carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decisions, finding XL Specialty failed to preserve its challenge to being the carrier and that the employer's responsibility for transportation made the injuries compensable. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, agreeing that the issue was unpreserved and that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment due to the employer's control over the conveyance.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment InjuriesCommuting AccidentEmployer Provided TransportationWrap-up PolicyInsurance Coverage DisputeCarrier LiabilityIssue PreservationAppellate Review
References
16
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. 2024 NY Slip Op 05619 [232 AD3d 1024]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

Matter of Sanchez v. Baldor Specialty Foods Inc.

Claimant Daysi Sanchez appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that Sanchez failed to demonstrate attachment to the labor market and suspended her workers' compensation benefits for work-related injuries to her left knee, low back, and consequential depression. Sanchez, having a temporary partial disability, submitted employment applications, but many were for positions outside her medical restrictions. She also refused a light-duty work offer that explicitly accommodated her restrictions due to persistent pain. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's findings, concluding that they were supported by substantial evidence.

Labor Market AttachmentTemporary Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical RestrictionsLight-Duty WorkVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimEmployment Applications
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Specialty Services, Inc.

Claimant, a construction foreman for Specialty Services, Inc., was injured while performing work for a church in Pennsylvania. Although Specialty filed a work-related accident report and its carrier began paying benefits, the carrier filed a notice of controversy over seven months after the Workers' Compensation Board indexed the case, exceeding the 25-day limit. The carrier argued that the late filing was due to surprise, mistake, and newly discovered evidence regarding the church's involvement, which claimant and Specialty allegedly failed to disclose. The Workers' Compensation Board refused to excuse the late filing, finding the carrier failed to demonstrate good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the carrier had ample time to investigate and that belatedly obtained evidence is not a sufficient ground to excuse a late filing.

Workers' CompensationLate Notice of ControversyTimely FilingEmployer-Employee RelationshipInsurance CarrierGood CausePleading BarAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
2
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

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
Showing 1-10 of 886 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