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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McNamee v. Starbucks Coffee Co.

Sharon McNamee ("Plaintiff") sued her former employer, Starbucks Coffee Company ("Defendant"), alleging discrimination based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (gender) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Plaintiff, a manager, experienced a series of adverse events, including denial of transfers, being placed on a 90-day performance improvement plan (PIP), and ultimately termination due to extended disability leave. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and that legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons existed for its actions. The court found that Plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust her ADA claim and could not establish discrimination under the ADEA or Title VII, nor could she maintain her retaliation claim. Consequently, the court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADEAAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas TestAdministrative Exhaustion
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 1985

Claim of Rodriguez v. Bustelo Coffee Co.

The claimant, a packer for a coffee company, reported leg and back pain from a work-related incident on September 18, 1979. Although the employer initially indicated an earlier 1977 injury, substantial evidence from the supervisor and medical witnesses confirmed the 1979 incident as the cause of the symptoms. The Workers’ Compensation Board's decision to affirm the 1979 accident and disallow any claim for a 1977 accident due to lack of notice was upheld. The case was restored to the Trial Calendar for further proceedings on the periods of causally related disability and reimbursement to the disability benefits carrier.

Workers' CompensationWorkplace InjuryNotice of InjuryCausal RelationDisability ClaimBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewReimbursementTrial Calendar
References
1
Case No. ADJ6482240
Regular
Dec 21, 2017

CATHERINE SANCHEZ vs. STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision concerning Catherine Sanchez's claim against Starbucks. The WCAB affirmed the original decision but amended the findings of fact to clarify that Sanchez's injury resulted in permanent total disability. This amendment entitles her to lifetime permanent disability payments at a specific weekly rate, with attorney fees to be determined later. The WCAB gave significant weight to the administrative law judge's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to overturn it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJCredibility DeterminationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Permanent Total DisabilityPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityAttorney FeeSedgwick Claims Management Services
References
1
Case No. ADJ4602378 (POM 0300098), ADJ3708085 (POM 0300213), ADJ7098978
Regular
Dec 20, 2016

LISA PENILLA vs. STARBUCKS COFFEE CO.; GALLAGHER BASSETT

In *Lisa Penilla v. Starbucks Coffee Co.*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's report, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. The applicant failed to meet this high burden, and rulings made during the MSC can be addressed by the trial judge.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyMSC JudgeTrial Judge
References
2
Case No. CA 10-00545
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

HAHN AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. (plaintiff) initiated a breach of contract action against American Zurich Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company (defendants), contending that bills issued under insurance contracts were time-barred. Defendants counterclaimed for damages stemming from plaintiff's alleged breach of these contracts. The Supreme Court partially granted plaintiff's cross-motion, deeming counterclaims for debts arising over six years prior as time-barred. Concurrently, it permitted defendants to utilize a $400,000 letter of credit to satisfy any outstanding debt, including those deemed time-barred. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the use of the letter of credit for time-barred debts, reasoning that the statute of limitations only bars the remedy, not the underlying obligation. The court also affirmed that defendants' counterclaims for debts over six years old were time-barred, as the right to demand payment accrued earlier. Finally, the court modified the order to dismiss plaintiff's second through fourth causes of action. A dissenting opinion argued that the counterclaims were not time-barred, asserting that the cause of action accrued upon demand and refusal of payment, not merely when the right to demand payment existed.

Breach of contractInsurance contractsStatute of limitationsLetter of creditSummary judgmentAppellate reviewContract interpretationTime-barred claimsAccrual of cause of actionRetrospective premiums
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hakim v. Armstrong Rubber Co.

Joseph Hakim initiated a negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries after a forklift tire he was changing exploded. He alleged that Armstrong Rubber Company negligently designed and manufactured the tire, Firestone Tire & Rubber Company negligently designed and manufactured the wheel rim, and Clark Equipment Company negligently manufactured and failed to inspect the forklift. Armstrong and Firestone successfully moved for summary judgment by presenting evidence that they did not manufacture the specific tire or rim involved, which Hakim failed to rebut with sufficient evidence. Conversely, Clark Equipment Company's motion for summary judgment was denied due to its failure to provide any evidence disproving its involvement in the forklift's manufacture or inspection.

Forklift accidentTire explosionProduct liabilitySummary judgmentNegligenceManufacturing defectDesign defectInspection failureHearsay evidencePrima facie case
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Homestead Village Assoc., L.P. v. Diamond State Insurance

Plaintiff Homestead Village Associates, LP sued its insurers, Diamond State Insurance Company and Chubb Insurance Company of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding their duty to defend and indemnify Homestead in a personal injury action. Homestead also sued its insurance broker, Capacity Coverage Company of New Jersey, for breach of contract and negligence due to late notification of the accident. All parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The court granted Diamond's motion, finding Homestead's 16-month delay in notification unreasonable. Chubb's motion was granted in part and denied in part, as the court found late notice from Homestead, but a factual dispute remained regarding Chubb's timely disclaimer. The court also clarified that Chubb's excess policy would not 'drop down' to cover primary obligations and it had no duty to defend. Homestead's and Capacity's cross-motions for summary judgment were denied, with factual disputes remaining regarding a special relationship and Capacity's knowledge of the accident's seriousness.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionLate Notice DefenseExcess Insurance PolicyInsurance Broker LiabilityBreach of ContractNegligence ClaimChoice of LawNew York Insurance Law
References
41
Case No. ADJ1526910 (LAO 0881311) ADJ1183697 (LAO 0881312)
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

MARGARITA GIUSTRA vs. PRIMARY PROVIDER MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, DELOS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Delos Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the arbitrator's report, which found that a prior Compromise and Release agreement between the applicant and Delos Insurance Company only settled a specific injury, not the continuous trauma claim. This decision allowed National Liability and Fire Insurance Company's petition for contribution against Delos Insurance Company for a portion of benefits paid for the continuous trauma injury. The arbitrator also determined that prior conflicting judicial decisions did not bar Delos Insurance Company from being joined in the contribution proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMargarita GiustraPrimary Provider ManagementNational Liability and Fire Insurance CompanyDelos Insurance CompanyADJ1526910ADJ1183697Petition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's ReportCompromise and Release
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1995

Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.

This case addresses a dispute between Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company (Wausau) and Continental Casualty Company (Continental), along with The Hartford Insurance Group. Wausau, as the employer's liability carrier for H. Sand & Company, successfully argued that a third-party action by Slattery-Argrett, subrogor of Continental, against H. Sand & Company, constituted an impermissible subrogation claim by an insurer against its own insured. The underlying matter involved a personal injury sustained by an employee of H. Sand & Company. Continental had initially disclaimed coverage for Sand in the third-party action. The Supreme Court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, declaring the subrogation action a violation of public policy and awarding Wausau damages. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, distinguishing the present case from prior rulings like *North Star Reins. Corp. v Continental Ins. Co.*, and emphasizing the distinction between claims for indemnification and contribution within insurance policy exclusions.

Subrogation ClaimInsurance Coverage DisputeIndemnification vs. ContributionPublic Policy in InsuranceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityGeneral Liability InsuranceExcess Liability InsuranceConstruction AccidentWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tozzi v. Long Island Railroad

Fred Tozzi, an employee of L & L Painting Company, Inc., was injured on the job in 1989, leading to a primary action against Long Island Railroad Company and a third-party action by the Railroad against L & L. Subsequently, L & L commenced a fourth-party action against its insurer, Commerce and Indemnity Insurance Company (C & I), seeking defense and indemnification under its commercial general liability policy. L & L moved for summary judgment, arguing the policy was ambiguous and regulatory estoppel applied, while C & I cross-moved to dismiss, citing an employee bodily injury exclusion. The court declined to apply regulatory estoppel due to the limited nature of New York's regulatory approval process for the insurance endorsement. However, the court found an ambiguity in the policy when considering the "Notice of Occurrence" endorsement alongside the exclusion. Construing this ambiguity in favor of the insured, the court granted L & L's motion for summary judgment, mandating C & I to defend and indemnify L & L, but also declared that L & L owed common-law and contractual indemnification to the Long Island Railroad Company.

Insurance policy interpretationCommercial General Liability (CGL)Employee bodily injury exclusionContractual indemnificationDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyRegulatory estoppelJudicial estoppelSummary judgmentAmbiguity in contract
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 7,777 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