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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Yanas v. Bimbo Bakeries

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for wrist pain, including carpal tunnel syndrome and flexor tendonitis, alleging it was an occupational disease from duties at Bimbo Bakeries. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the claim, finding insufficient evidence of repetitive motion and rejecting physician opinions for lacking adequate understanding of the claimant’s work and medical history. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. On appeal, the court further affirmed, emphasizing that the Board’s factual findings regarding occupational disease, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed, and that the Board is entitled to reject medical evidence deemed inadequately founded.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRepetitive Strain InjuryMedical CausationSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard DecisionPhysician TestimonyWork ActivitiesCredibility Assessment
References
8
Case No. ADJ4709951 (SFO 0511409)
Regular
Oct 28, 2010

POMPEYO CASTILLA vs. SUGAR BOWL BAKERY, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Pompeyo Castilla seeking reconsideration of a $\$75,000$ compromise and release settlement for a back and nervous system injury. Castilla argued the settlement was too low and he was coerced. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed his petition as untimely, as it was filed approximately one month after the deadline. The Board noted that the filing deadline is jurisdictional and that they would have denied the petition on its merits if it had been timely.

Pompeyo CastillaSugar Bowl BakeryOak River Insurance CompanyADJ4709951SFO 0511409Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJBack InjuryNervous System Injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ8019992 ADJ9131164 ADJ8511171 ADJ8020023 ADJ8508745 ADJ8019998 ADJ8020051 ADJ8729779
Regular
Dec 05, 2018

SHUN WAH CHAN vs. LY BROTHERS CORPORATION DBA SUGAR BOWL BAKERY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by applicant Shun Wah Chan. The WCAB dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed over a year after the original decision, far exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline. The Board emphasized that a petition for reconsideration must be *received* by the WCAB within the statutory period, not just mailed. Therefore, the Board lacked authority to consider the merits of the untimely petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWCABWCJLab. CodeCal. Code Regs.jurisdictionalproof of mailingOctober 5
References
4
Case No. 526783
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Matter of Scott v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.

Claimant, Erin Scott, worked for 20 years at a commercial bakery, performing duties involving prolonged standing and repetitive lifting and bending. In August 2011, she experienced back pain but continued working. Her condition progressively worsened over three years, leading her to file an incident report and seek medical treatment in May 2014. She filed a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The carrier contested, arguing it was an accidental injury and time-barred, but the Workers' Compensation Board and the Appellate Division affirmed the decision that it was a causally-related occupational disease, not time-barred, as her job duties exacerbated her underlying back condition.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation LawCausationRepetitive Motion InjuryLower Back PainDegenerative Disc DiseaseStatute of LimitationsAppellate DivisionMedical TestimonyBoard Review
References
10
Case No. 11 CV 1471
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Industry International Pension Fund

The case involves multiple plaintiffs, participants in the Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund Pension Plan, who challenged an amendment to the plan. This amendment eliminated the ability for participants no longer in covered employment to "age into" certain early retirement benefits (Plan C and Plan G). Plaintiffs alleged this violated Section 204(g) of ERISA, the anti-cutback rule, which protects accrued benefits. The Court, applying the standard for judgment on the pleadings, found that the Plan C and Plan G benefits are early retirement or retirement-type subsidies and thus accrued benefits under ERISA. Relying on statutory text and precedent like *Ahng v. Allsteel, Inc.*, the Court ruled that the amendment impermissibly cut back accrued benefits for those employees who had met the years of service requirement and could continue to age into their pension benefits even after separation from employment. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motions for judgment on the pleadings and denied the defendants' motions.

ERISAPension PlanRetirement BenefitsAnti-cutback RuleEmployee BenefitsJudgment on the PleadingsDefined Benefit PlanEarly RetirementAccrued BenefitsPlan Amendment
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Refined Sugars, Inc. v. Local 807 Labor-Management Pension Fund

This case involves Refined Sugars, Inc. (RSI) challenging a withdrawal liability claim brought by the Local 807 Labor-Management Pension Fund and its Board of Trustees under ERISA and MPPAA. RSI filed for a declaratory judgment, arguing it was not an 'employer' subject to such liability. The court analyzed the definition of 'employer' under ERISA Title IV and Title I, concluding that RSI did not meet the criteria, particularly regarding common control with the direct employer, Francrete Corporation. Additionally, the court rejected the application of common law criteria and the joint employer theory. Consequently, RSI's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the defendants' cross-motion was denied, finding RSI not liable for withdrawal contributions.

ERISAMPPAAWithdrawal LiabilityMulti-employer Pension PlanSummary JudgmentEmployer DefinitionCommon ControlIndependent ContractorJoint EmployerPension Fund
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bakery Confectionery Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union, Local 116 v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

This case involved a dispute between the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, Local 116, and Wegmans Food Markets concerning the arbitrability of an employee's termination. Employee Derrick McCullough was dismissed for alleged theft, and the Union sought to compel arbitration, contending the collective bargaining agreement's theft exclusion was ambiguous or misapplied. The District Court granted summary judgment for Wegmans, denying the Union's cross-motion, concluding that the exclusionary clause was unambiguous. The court found Wegmans' characterization of McCullough's conduct as theft was valid based on the evidence presented at the time of termination, thereby rendering the grievance non-arbitrable.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActTheft Exclusion ClauseEmployee TerminationGrievance ProcedureContract InterpretationFederal District CourtUnion Rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gadley v. U.S. Sugar Co.

This dissenting opinion addresses a case where the plaintiff, a replacement worker provided by EGW, sought action against U.S. Sugar, despite EGW paying his salary and benefits, including workers’ compensation. The dissent argues that the plaintiff should be considered a special employee of U.S. Sugar due to the latter's sole control and direction over his work. Citing relevant case law, the dissenting judges assert that worker’s compensation benefits constitute the exclusive remedy, thus barring the plaintiff’s action. They also emphasize the validity of an affidavit from James Bonerb, a U.S. Sugar vice-president, in supporting their position. Consequently, the dissent concludes that U.S. Sugar’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

Special Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Exclusive RemedyControl and Direction of WorkDissenting OpinionAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityAgency WorkersEvidentiary ValueAffidavit Evidence
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 116 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