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. 2020 NY Slip Op 07642
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Thomas (US Pack Logistics, LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Aston R. Thomas, a claimant, was hired by US Pack Logistics, LLC to deliver blood samples. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that Thomas was an employee of US Pack Logistics, LLC, making the company liable for unemployment insurance contributions. US Pack Logistics, LLC appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship, noting that US Pack Logistics, LLC exercised sufficient supervision, direction, and control over significant aspects of Thomas's work, despite Thomas using his own vehicle and not being reimbursed for expenses. The court emphasized that the determination of an employment relationship is a question of fact, and the Board's decision, if supported by substantial evidence, is beyond further judicial review.

Unemployment Insurance LawEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance ContributionsLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardJudiciary Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swift Independent Packing Co. v. District Union Local One

This case involves a dispute between Swift Independent Packing Company and District Union Local One over a labor arbitration award. Swift sought to vacate the award, which was issued by Arbitrator Mario A. Procopio and favored the Union regarding work schedules and overtime pay under a collective bargaining agreement. Swift raised several objections, including alleged arbitrator bias, reliance on facts not in evidence, the award lacking essence from the agreement, and refusal to hear testimony. The District Court, emphasizing its limited scope of review over arbitration awards, denied Swift's motion for summary judgment to vacate the award and granted the Union's motion to confirm it, concluding that no grounds for vacatur existed and that Swift had waived its right to object to the alleged bias.

Labor ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardVacatur of AwardConfirmation of AwardArbitrator BiasJudicial ReviewWaiver DoctrineOvertime PayWork Schedules
References
19
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02032 [228 AD3d 20]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2024

Air-Sea Packing Group, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Air-Sea Packing Group, Inc. against Applied Underwriters, Inc. and its affiliates. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants marketed and sold an unlawful workers' compensation insurance program, EquityComp, in violation of New York Insurance Law. The defendants attempted to enforce a forum selection clause mandating litigation in Nebraska, but the court found this clause unenforceable. This decision was based on public policy, as the program violated New York law, and because Nebraska courts had previously deemed New York the more appropriate forum for such disputes. The ruling allows the plaintiff to pursue claims for declaratory relief, equitable rescission, common-law fraud, and violation of General Business Law § 349 in New York.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceForum Selection ClausePublic PolicyInsurance Law ViolationsEquitable RescissionCommon-Law FraudDeceptive PracticesGeneral Business Law § 349Unlawful Reinsurance AgreementRegulatory Oversight
References
52
Case No. ADJ9079342
Regular
Nov 21, 2014

MARIA SOTO vs. SAMBRAILO PACKING, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant concerning a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the petition. The Board needs more time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues to ensure a just decision. Further proceedings may be held, and all future filings must be submitted in writing to the Office of the Commissioners, not to any district office or via e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSambrailo PackingZenith Insurance CompanyADJ9079342San Bernardino District OfficeOpinion and OrderStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hilbert v. Sahlen Packing Co.

The plaintiff sustained personal injuries after being ejected from a bucket truck while removing a utility pole. The plaintiff initiated an action against Sahlen Packing Company, the premises owner, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Sahlen subsequently impleaded Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, the plaintiff's employer. Sahlen appealed an order granting summary judgment to Niagara Mohawk, which resulted in the dismissal of the third-party complaint under the 1996 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Sahlen contended that these amendments violated due process, constituted an unfair taking, impaired contractual obligations, and should not be applied retroactively, also arguing a triable issue of fact existed concerning grave injury. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff did not suffer a "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that the amendments applied as the accident occurred post-enactment and the action commenced in March 1997. Additionally, Sahlen’s constitutional challenges to the amendments were deemed without merit.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryDue Process ChallengeTakings ClauseContract ImpairmentRetroactive ApplicationSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionLabor LawFacial Disfigurement
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01470 [192 AD3d 1315]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2021

Matter of McLaughlin v. Sahlen Packing Co., Inc.

Kelly A. McLaughlin filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits after her husband died at work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, determining his death was causally related to employment. The employer appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing it had overcome the presumption of Workers' Compensation Law § 21 and that the claimant lacked sufficient evidence of causal relation. The Board denied the employer's application for review due to non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b), specifically failing to provide a complete response to question 15 on form RB-89 regarding the date an objection was interposed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as the employer's response was patently defective.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsApplication for Board ReviewProcedural ComplianceForm RB-89Administrative Review DenialCausally Related EmploymentAppellate ReviewFailure to Complete FormObjection DateDiscretionary Denial
References
13
Case No. ADJ1298866 (LAO 0791081) ADJ4098623 (LAO 0855391)
Regular
Feb 10, 2009

MIGUEL NOBOA vs. COUGHERTY PACKING COMPANY

In Noboa v. Cougherty Packing Company, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the applicant's failure to verify the petition, a mandatory requirement under Labor Code section 5902. This procedural defect rendered the petition invalid, leading the WCAB to reject it. The WCAB cited relevant case law supporting its decision to dismiss unverified petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedVerifiedLabor Code section 5902Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJSmith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals BoardLucena v. Workers' Comp. Appeals BoardSignificant Panel DecisionPermit
References
2
Case No. ADJ7552169
Regular
Jul 16, 2015

DAVID PACK vs. RESULTS RADIO, ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed applicant David Pack's petition for reconsideration and removal because it lacked a proper proof of service, a defect that the applicant was given an opportunity to cure but failed to do. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which recommended denial on the merits as well if not dismissed as defective. The Board also strongly admonished applicant's attorney for making unsubstantiated accusations of fraud against the WCJ, noting that this conduct may warrant sanctions.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalFindings and OrderTime-barredStatute of LimitationsTolledProof of ServiceWCJSanctions
References
1
Case No. ADJ10801516
Regular
Jul 24, 2017

JORGE RAMIREZ vs. MANN PACKING COMPANY, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, Jorge Ramirez is the applicant, and Mann Packing Company, Inc. and its insurer are the defendants. Both the applicant and defendants challenged judges in the Salinas District Office, exhausting available judicial options there. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ordered the venue transferred to the San Jose District Office. The case will now be heard by Judge David Lauerman in San Jose.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVenue ChangeChallengesAppeals Board Rule 10453Salinas District OfficeSan Jose District OfficePresiding Workers' Compensation JudgeJudge David LauermanApplicantDefendant
References
1
Case No. ADJ9693537
Regular
Feb 17, 2015

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. SMITH PACKING, INC.; CAREWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by PEGASUS RISK MANAGEMENT

In *Martinez v. Smith Packing, Inc.*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of significant harm, which the defendant failed to demonstrate. The defendant's argument for changing venue from Santa Barbara to San Luis Obispo was also rejected, as the applicant lived, worked, and was injured in Santa Barbara County, and the WCJ found good cause to keep the case in that venue.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyLabor Code Section 5501.5Labor Code Section 5501.6VenueSanta Barbara County
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 75 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