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. 2017 NY Slip Op 06228 [153 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2017

Matter of Everett v. Sodexo, Inc.

Eugene Everett, a dishwasher, suffered a foot injury at work when a large pot fell on it, leading to the amputation of his toe and ultimately half of his left foot. He applied for workers' compensation benefits, which his employer, Sodexo, Inc., and its carrier opposed, asserting the injury was due to his diabetes and that he made misrepresentations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found the injury causally related and no misrepresentation, a decision affirmed by a Workers' Compensation Board panel and then by the full Board. The employer's appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department, was dismissed. The court ruled that the right to appeal from the Board panel's decision terminated upon the issuance of the full Board's superseding decision.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsWorkplace InjuryAmputation ClaimCausation DisputeEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewAppeal DismissalSuperseding JudgmentJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03560 [206 AD3d 1106]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

O'Toole v. Marist Coll.

Mohamed Charafeddine, a food services general manager for Sodexo, Inc., sustained injuries from a fall on a staircase at Marist College's campus. His trustee, Marianne T. O'Toole, and his wife initiated a negligence action against Marist College. Marist College subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Sodexo for contractual indemnity, common-law indemnity, and contribution, alleging failures in maintenance and insurance. The Supreme Court partially denied Sodexo's motion for summary judgment on these third-party claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, determining that the accident was not solely due to Sodexo's negligence and that Marist College bore the responsibility for the structural integrity and maintenance of the staircase. Consequently, Sodexo's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of all claims for contractual indemnity, common-law indemnity, and contribution against it.

summary judgmentcontractual indemnitycommon-law indemnitycontributionnegligencepremises liabilitythird-party actionappellate reviewstaircase accidentsafety regulations
References
10
Case No. ADJ2132299 (LBO 0388702) ADJ1701566 (LBO 0388703)
Regular
Oct 01, 2014

IMELDA JUARES vs. SODEXO, INC.

This case concerns a Petition for Removal that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed. The WCAB adopted the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found the matter moot. The reason for mootness was that the petitioning lien claimant appeared at an adjourned hearing and provided an explanation and apology for prior unavailability. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was dismissed by the WCAB.

Petition for RemovalMootWCJ ReportAdjourned HearingLien ClaimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalGallagher BassettSodexoInsurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania
References
0
Case No. ADJ8882780
Regular
Jan 30, 2017

LOURDES LOPEZ vs. SODEXO as administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The defendant sought reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release, alleging a mutual mistake in settlement documents regarding a temporary disability overpayment deduction. The original judge recommended denial, arguing any error was unilateral as the defendant drafted the document. However, the Appeals Board found the petition timely filed and discovered the parties executed an amended Compromise and Release to correct the drafting error. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original order, and returned the matter to the trial level for the judge to consider the amended settlement.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationMutual Mistake of FactOverpaymentTemporary Disability IndemnityDrafting ErrorAmended Compromise and ReleaseRescindTrial LevelOrder Approving Compromise and Release
References
0
Case No. ADJ9928626 ADJ9928628
Regular
Feb 09, 2016

AMPARO REYES vs. SODEXO, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses a Petition for Removal. The petitioner withdrew the petition as per a prior hearing's minutes. The Board admonishes the claims administrator and its attorney for failing to notify the Board of a settlement and to withdraw the petition at the appropriate time. The Petition for Removal is therefore officially dismissed.

Petition for RemovalWithdrawn PetitionMinutes of HearingClaims AdministratorSettlement NotificationAppeals BoardDismissed OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardGallagher BassettLinda T. Condra
References
0
Case No. ADJ7802737
Regular
Dec 23, 2013

VICTOR CAN vs. SODEXO, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a prior order dismissing its lien. This dismissal was based on the lien claimant's failure to timely pay a lien activation fee under Labor Code section 4903.06. However, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of this fee provision. Consequently, the Board rescinded the dismissal order and returned the matter for further proceedings, as the lien activation fee requirement was temporarily unenforceable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06Petition for ReconsiderationPreliminary injunctionAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerWCJRescindedReturned to trial levelGallagher Bassett Services
References
1
Case No. ADJ6821965 ADJ6822019
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

FELIX ESTEFO vs. SODEXO, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision regarding the Medical Provider Network's (MPN) effective date of December 14, 2007, and the imposition of $2,400 in sanctions against hearing representative Tami Navon for making false statements. However, the Board rescinded the WCJ's order regarding the lien claimant's claim, deferring the lien and returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to clarify the issues and evidence related to the lien. This ensures due process and proper consideration of the lien's compensability, especially if treatment predated the MPN's effective date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPN effective dateLien claimantSanctionsHearing representativeReconsiderationFindings and OrderStipulationCompromise and Release
References
1
Case No. ADJ6720674
Regular
Jul 14, 2014

MARIA DE PAZ vs. SODEXO, INC./INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by an applicant in a workers' compensation matter. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because the issue raised was moot and the petitioner was not aggrieved. The Board also admonished the applicant's attorney for filing a petition challenging a non-final order and for failing to withdraw it after the ruling was vacated. Consequently, the Board formally dismissed the petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardmoot issuenot aggrievedapplicant's attorney admonishmentWCJ rulingnot a final orderpetition for removaljurisdictional requirementsvacated ruling
References
0
Case No. ADJ7455003
Regular
Nov 25, 2015

JENNY VARELA vs. SODEXO, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case concerns whether Dr. Curtis Montgomery and Inland Incare Medical Associates are within the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Appeals Board found that the lien claimants failed to meet their burden of proof to show Dr. Montgomery was in the MPN. The Board rescinded the prior findings and ordered further development of the record regarding Dr. Montgomery's and Inland Incare's MPN status. This decision allows for a more complete adjudication of the MPN issues.

MPNMedical Provider NetworkCoventryGBMCSReconsiderationLien ClaimantsBurden of ProofDevelop the RecordFindings of FactOrder
References
0
Case No. ADJ7233690, ADJ7233689
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

, ANGELLA GALINDO vs. , SODEXO; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied DNM Pharmacy's petition for reconsideration of a dismissed lien claim. DNM Pharmacy failed to appear at a scheduled lien conference and subsequently failed to object to the Notice of Intention to Dismiss Lien. The Board found no good cause for DNM Pharmacy's non-appearance, rejecting arguments about not receiving a Declaration of Readiness and the defendant's failure to initiate a call. The WCJ's dismissal of the lien was therefore upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ClaimantDNM PharmacyWCJDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLien ConferenceNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienBoard Rule 10562
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 12 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