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. ADJ7880143
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

KIMMISHA JOHNSON vs. SUPERIOR GROCERS, GUARANTEE INSURANCE CO.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, *Johnson v. Superior Grocers*, concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration. The Board has granted reconsideration to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is deemed necessary for a complete understanding of the record and to issue a just decision. All future filings related to this case must be submitted in writing directly to the Commissioners' office in San Francisco, not to any district office or via e-filing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionElectronic Adjudication Management SystemSan Diego District OfficeSan Francisco OfficeCommissioners
References
0
Case No. ADJ9906817 ADJ9850975
Regular
May 16, 2019

ALEXANDER MARTINEZ RODRIGUEZ vs. SUPERCENTER CONCEPTS, INC, D/B/A SUPERIOR GROCERS, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY INSURANCE, administered by HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, NUMERO UNO ACQUISITIONS, LLC D/B/A NUMERO UNO MARKET, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant Superior Grocers sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release for applicant's claimed injuries. They argued the settlement failed to name all employers, did not account for prior disability payments, and omitted a fee hold for attorney splits. The Board dismissed the petition as premature because a trial is scheduled for May 22, 2019, where these issues can be properly addressed with evidence and testimony. Therefore, the Board found it lacked sufficient information to rule on the reconsideration request at this time.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeSet Aside OrderIndemnity AdvancesFee Split AgreementMultiple Body PartsMeat CutterSuperior Grocers
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kahn v. Superior Chicken & Ribs, Inc.

The plaintiff, Yousuf Mohammad Kahn, initiated this action against his former employer, Superior Chicken & Ribs, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning overtime pay. The court had previously dismissed claims related to meal periods and statutory contributions. The defendant subsequently filed for summary judgment on the outstanding overtime claims, contending that Kahn was exempt from overtime requirements as an executive or administrative employee. The court determined that Kahn satisfied both the 'salary basis' and 'duties' components of the exemption's short test, citing his application for a managerial position, prior work experience, sole on-site supervisory role, distinct uniform, and prior self-identification as a manager to medical professionals and in a bankruptcy filing. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby ruling that Kahn was indeed exempt from federal and state overtime pay regulations. The defendant's request for attorneys' fees was denied due to procedural non-compliance with Rule 11 and the absence of a bad faith finding under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

FLSAOvertime PaySummary JudgmentExecutive ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionNew York Labor LawManagerial DutiesSalary Basis TestDuties TestEmployment Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rodriguez v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.

Claimant, a probationary employee at C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., was terminated after injuring his left foot in a "preventable accident" while operating a pallet jack, pursuant to the employer's 90-day policy. This policy stipulated automatic forfeiture of employment for preventable injuries within the probationary period, contrasting with lesser penalties for uninjured safety violators. Claimant filed a discrimination complaint under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge for potentially seeking benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the claimant, finding the employer's policy discriminatory. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the policy discouraged employees from reporting injuries and pursuing workers' compensation benefits, thus violating the intent of Workers' Compensation Law § 120.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation DiscriminationProbationary EmploymentWorkplace Safety PolicyPreventable AccidentsEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationEmployee RightsDiscriminatory PolicyWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1993

In re Arbitration between Bevona & Superior Maintenance Co.

Petitioner, a union representing employee Orlando Moneado, sought to confirm an arbitration award directing Superior Maintenance Company to reinstate Moneado and pay back wages. Superior moved to vacate the award, citing the arbitrator's misconduct in denying an adjournment request and issuing a default award after evidence had been presented. The Supreme Court initially confirmed the award, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the lower court erred in denying Superior's motion to renew and that the arbitrator's refusal to grant an adjournment constituted misconduct. Consequently, the appellate court granted Superior's motion to vacate the arbitration award.

Arbitration AppealVacation of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardArbitrator MisconductDenial of AdjournmentDefault AwardCPLR 7511CPLR 7510Motion to RenewAppellate Procedure
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Rivera v. Superior Laundry Services, LLC

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning an employer's workers' compensation policy. The claimant, initially employed by Brand Management Services, Inc. (BMS) doing business as County Agency, Inc., was injured while working for Superior Laundry Services, LLC. Guarantee Insurance Company, BMS's carrier, disputed the claim, asserting the policy did not cover Superior Laundry's direct employees and had been canceled. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed that the policy was not properly canceled due to insufficient notice. The Appellate Court reversed this decision, agreeing that cancellation notice was improper but concluding that the policy fundamentally did not provide coverage for Superior Laundry Services, LLC at the time of the claimant's accident.

Workers' CompensationInsurance PolicyPolicy CancellationCoverage DisputeProfessional Employer OrganizationAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityCarrier ResponsibilityAdditional Insured EndorsementNotice Requirements
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00956
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, Krste Cacanoski, was injured after falling through a skylight during asbestos removal work for 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC. He commenced an action against 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Cacanoski's employer, Superior Abatement, Inc., seeking contractual indemnification under a subcontract executed after the accident. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order with respect to the plaintiff's motion, granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding that the absence of necessary protection was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to apply retroactively.

Labor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAsbestos RemovalFall from heightSky-lightContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Appellate Division
References
19
Case No. ADJ4279077 (SDO 0317244)
Regular
May 05, 2018

TINA BARONI vs. CITY OF OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has removed this case for the stated intention to strike documents filed by attorney Adrienne D. Cohen, who is not of record. These documents, which include notices related to a San Diego Superior Court case and a petition for writ of prohibition, are deemed irrelevant and improperly filed. The WCAB asserts that California Superior Courts lack jurisdiction over the WCAB and that CIGA failed to utilize proper procedural remedies. The WCAB will strike the documents unless good cause is shown to the contrary within ten days.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalStriking DocumentsEAMS RecordCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Indemnity CompanyCity of OceansideAdrienne D. CohenNotice of Related CaseWrit of Prohibition
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01469
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2021

Matter of Mayewski v. Superior Plus Energy Servs.

Claimant David Mayewski suffered work-related second and third-degree burns in 2013, leading to scarring and skin grafts. Following a permanency evaluation, his treating physician and an independent medical examiner offered reports concerning a schedule loss of use for his right arm and leg, and the treating physician also found a nonschedule permanent impairment for his torso/skin. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board both concluded that the injuries were amenable to a nonschedule classification. Mayewski appealed this decision, arguing it was limited to his torso and did not account for limited range of motion in his extremities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence from the treating physician's report detailing objective skin disorder findings, thermal regulation issues, skin irritation, and intermittent pain.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseNonschedule ClassificationPermanent Partial DisabilityBurnsSkin ImpairmentAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceImpairment Guidelines
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 298 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