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. ADJ1421850 (FRE0216376)
Regular
Aug 17, 2009

BILL CUSTER vs. SARA LEE BAKERY GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a finding of serious and willful misconduct by the employer, Sara Lee Bakery Group. The applicant sustained a knee and groin injury due to a broken bread tray, and the initial finding of misconduct was based on testimony about past practices. However, the Board found no evidence that the employer's executive or managing officers knew serious injury was probable or acted with reckless disregard for consequences. Consequently, the prior award finding serious and willful misconduct was rescinded, and a new decision was issued stating the injury was not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code § 4553Findings and AwardReconsiderationRescindedApplicantDefendantRoute SalesmanIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. STK 182176
Regular
Mar 07, 2008

ShAENA SOUTHARD vs. HALLMARK CARDS/ROYAL SUNALLIANCE, SARA LEE/BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Sara Lee's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding of cumulative injury sustained while working for Sara Lee. The Board relied on the Labor Code § 5402(b) presumption of compensability due to Sara Lee's failure to deny the claim within 90 days of receiving the DWC-1 form. Additionally, the Board found the medical opinion of Dr. Feinberg, which attributed a portion of the injury to Sara Lee's employment, to be credible and substantial evidence.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative InjurySara LeeHallmark CardsLabor Code § 5402(b)Presumption of CompensabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorDr. Steven D. Feinberg
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sara Lee Corp. v. Bags of New York, Inc.

Sara Lee Corporation filed an action claiming defendants produced and sold counterfeit trademarked Coach Leatherware products, violating the Trademark Act of 1946. Following defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered, and the court retained jurisdiction to determine damages. Despite court orders, seizures, and civil contempt findings, defendant Nabil Helou and his associated businesses persisted in their counterfeiting activities. The court, noting the defendants' willful infringement, efforts to mislead, and defiance of deterrence, awarded Sara Lee $750,000 in statutory damages and $46,045.63 in attorney fees and costs.

Trademark InfringementCounterfeitingStatutory DamagesAttorney FeesWillful InfringementDefault JudgmentInjunctive ReliefDeterrencePunitive DamagesCivil Contempt
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Glessing

Plaintiff William Lee initiated a lawsuit against Charles Glessing and Palantine Nursing Home, alleging gender and disability discrimination under Title VII, ADA, and New York State Human Rights Law, along with claims of retaliation. Lee, a physical therapist, contended he endured sexual harassment from female co-workers and was wrongfully terminated due to his gender, a mental disability, and in response to his complaints. Defendants sought summary judgment, asserting non-discriminatory termination reasons, arguing Lee was an independent contractor, and disputing the existence of a hostile work environment. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, identifying unresolved factual disputes regarding the termination's true cause, Lee's employment status, and the claims of a hostile work environment and employer liability. Additionally, plaintiff's ADA claims were dismissed by stipulation of the parties.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)New York Human Rights Law
References
42
Case No. Dkt.# 9
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Barnhart

Johnny Lee, acting pro se, sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c) of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision that he was not disabled and thus ineligible for SSDI or SSI benefits. After an initial denial, a reversal and remand by the court, and a second hearing before ALJ John Costello which again denied benefits, Lee filed this action. The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the court granted. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding substantial evidence in the administrative record. The court concluded that Lee's subjective complaints of chronic back and knee pain were not supported by objective medical evidence from multiple physicians, and the ALJ's credibility findings were reasonable.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeSSDIChronic Back PainKnee PainMedical EvidenceResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkCredibility DeterminationAdministrative Law Judge
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2009

Lee v. Arnan Development Corp.

Plaintiff Anthony Lee, a cement truck operator, suffered knee injuries after falling due to soft ground and concrete debris while cleaning his truck at a facility operated by defendant Oneonta. Lee and his wife filed a negligence action against Oneonta. Oneonta sought summary judgment, arguing it was an alter ego of Lee's employer, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy, and that it had no notice of a dangerous condition. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that Oneonta failed to demonstrate an alter ego relationship and did not prove it maintained a reasonably safe premises.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineNegligencePremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityCorporate SeparatenessPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. ADJ8406355
Regular
Sep 06, 2016

JORGE GARCIA vs. SARA LEE CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY c/o ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a judge's award finding Sara Lee Corporation liable for a penalty based on the full $8,000 supplemental job displacement voucher, plus penalties for medication delays and attorney fees. The WCAB agreed that the penalty for the delayed voucher should be limited to 25% of the *actual amount used* by the applicant, not the full voucher amount. The WCAB otherwise affirmed the judge's findings on medication delays and attorney fees, adopting the judge's report.

Supplemental Job Displacement VoucherIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code section 5814PenaltyReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJAppeals BoardAttorney's feesActual time spent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. ABC Carpet & Home

Plaintiff Richard Lee sued ABC Carpet & Home, Jerry Weinrib, and Paul Chapman for back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, asserting he was an employee. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending Lee was an independent contractor. The court employed the five-factor 'Economic Reality Test' to determine employment status. Significant factual disputes emerged concerning employer control, Lee's potential for profit or loss, the required skill for the work, the permanence of the working relationship, and whether carpet installation was an integral part of ABC's business. Given these unresolved material facts, the court denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorSummary Judgment MotionEconomic Reality TestWage DisputesEmployment LawCarpet InstallersEmployer Control
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers, International Union of America v. General Baking Co.

The case involves a union, representing production and maintenance employees, suing several bakery companies for an alleged lockout. The union brought the action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, claiming a breach of the no-lockout provisions in their collective bargaining agreements. The alleged lockout occurred when the defendant bakery companies halted operations and sent home the plaintiff union's members, even though there was no direct labor dispute between them. This action was a response to a strike by a separate drivers' union against one of the bakery companies. The court defined a lockout as an employer withholding work to gain a concession *from their employees*. Since the defendants were not in a dispute with the plaintiff union and their actions were not intended to coerce concessions from them, the court ruled that no lockout had occurred. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Labor LawLockoutCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActBreach of ContractNo-lockout ClauseStrikeUnionEmployer-employee Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Harvest Bakery Inc.

This case involves allegations by plaintiffs Maximino Rivera, Miguel Roldan, and Oscar Quintanilla against Harvest Bakery, Inc., Robert Marconti, and Jose Gonzalez. The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to pay overtime and spread of hours wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The core of the dispute revolves around whether the defendants had a common policy of not paying these wages to their production workers. The Court addresses the defendants' arguments regarding the prematurity and mootness of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, ultimately rejecting them. The Court then proceeds to grant the plaintiffs' motion, certifying a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees who worked for Harvest Bakery in New York, and appoints class counsel, finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, and superiority) have been met.

Wage and Hour LawOvertime PaySpread of Hours WagesClass Action CertificationRule 23(b)(3)FLSA ViolationNYLL ViolationCommonalityTypicalityNumerosity
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 288 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