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. 2023-03-8195
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Burkes, Jerry v. Sysco Knoxville, LLC

The employee, Jerry R. Burkes, appealed the trial court's denial of extraordinary benefits after sustaining a compensable knee injury while working for Sysco Knoxville, LLC. Although the trial court awarded increased general benefits, it denied the extraordinary benefits because Burkes failed to submit a Physician Certification Form, a statutory requirement. On appeal, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that strict compliance with statutory mandates for extraordinary benefits, particularly the Physician Certification Form, is necessary and substantial compliance is insufficient. The Board concluded that the absence of the required form was fatal to the employee's claim for extraordinary benefits. Consequently, the trial court's denial of extraordinary benefits was affirmed, and the order was certified as final.

Extraordinary BenefitsPermanent DisabilityKnee InjuryPhysician Certification FormSubstantial ComplianceStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewMedical ImpairmentPost-Hearing MotionResignation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alfieri v. SYSCO Food Services-Syracuse

The plaintiff, Mary Alfieri, sued her former employer, SYSCO Food Services of Syracuse, alleging discrimination based on Title VII, ADEA, and EPA. She claimed constructive discharge, unequal pay, hostile work environment, and gender and age discrimination. SYSCO moved for summary judgment, arguing that many claims were untimely and Alfieri failed to establish a prima facie case. The court granted SYSCO's motion, dismissing all of Alfieri's claims with prejudice, finding insufficient evidence to support her allegations of discriminatory working conditions or unequal pay, and noting her failure to present specific facts to create a genuine issue for trial.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationEqual Pay ActHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawTitle VIIADEA
References
51
Case No. 2023-03-8195
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2025

BURKES, JERRY R. v. SYSCO CORPORATION

Jerry R. Burkes, an employee of Sysco Corporation, sustained a work-related left-knee injury and sought additional permanent disability benefits after an initial award settlement. The Court found that Mr. Burkes's resignation from Sysco was a direct result of his work injury and his inability to perform pre-injury duties. Consequently, he was deemed entitled to increased benefits due to not returning to work at an equal or greater pay rate and being over age 40. However, his request for extraordinary benefits was denied because he failed to provide the required physician's certification form. Additionally, a post-hearing motion to supplement the record with extraneous issues was denied by the Court.

Work-related knee injuryPermanent disability benefitsIncreased benefitsExtraordinary benefitsVoluntary resignationMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment ratingPhysician certificationTennessee Workers' CompensationMedical treatment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Sysco Food Services of Dallas, Inc.

Plaintiff Mia Wilson sued her former employer, SYSCO Food Services of Dallas, Inc., and her supervisor, Carroll Bonneau, alleging sexual harassment under Title VII and various state law claims. Wilson claimed Bonneau created a hostile work environment and engaged in quid pro quo harassment, leading to her termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment on several grounds. The court denied the defendants' objection to Wilson's affidavit. It granted summary judgment for the defendants on the hostile work environment, due process, and all state law claims. However, the court denied summary judgment on Wilson's quid pro quo sexual harassment claim against Bonneau in his official capacity, finding genuine factual disputes.

Sexual HarassmentTitle VIIQuid Pro QuoHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawRetaliationDue ProcessIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressBreach of Contract
References
39
Case No. ADJ9447099
Regular
Nov 09, 2015

ROGELIO MARTINEZ vs. SYSCO VENTURA INC, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Rogelio Martinez's Petition for Reconsideration against Sysco Ventura Inc. and Gallagher Bassett. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within 25 days of service, and proof of mailing is insufficient; the document must be received by the WCAB within that period. The WCAB found the petition, filed on 09/10/2015, was significantly past the deadline following the WCJ's 07/16/2015 decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedJurisdictionalWCABWCJLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sullivan v. Sysco Corp.

Claimant, a truck driver with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying benefits after January 24, 1990, arguing his disability was not continuous. The Board had found his SVT-related disability work-related for specific prior periods but deemed him not disabled when attacks subsided, citing his predisposition. The Appellate Court reversed this, finding the Board's conclusion illogical and unsupported by substantial evidence. All three medical experts, including the carrier's, testified that claimant's SVT was a chronic, ongoing condition exacerbated by heavy lifting required for his work, rendering him continuously disabled despite episodic attacks. The court highlighted the Board's inability to fashion its own medical opinion against uncontroverted expert testimony, thus remitting the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSVTSupraventricular TachycardiaChronic ConditionDisability BenefitsMedical Expert TestimonyCausationWork-Related InjuryHeavy LiftingTruck Driver
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reese v. Sysco Food Services-Albany

The claimant, injured in 2007 while working for a food service company, initially received temporary partial disability payments for back and left hamstring injuries. A consequential injury to his right fifth metacarpal was later added to the claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the claimant voluntarily removed himself from the labor market in May 2010 by not returning to a light duty assignment despite medical clearance. After further injuries and employment termination in 2012, the claimant sought an award for reduced earnings, arguing his current job was less demanding. Both the WCLJ and the Board denied this request, ruling that his reduction in earnings was not causally related to his compensable disability, a decision which was affirmed on appeal due to substantial evidence.

Reduced earningsVoluntary removal from labor marketLight duty assignmentCausally related disabilityWorkers' compensation appealBack injuryLeft lower extremity injuryRight fifth metacarpal fractureLeft knee problemsMedical clearance
References
5
Case No. ADJ10040520
Regular
Oct 01, 2019

VICTOR DAVILA vs. SYSCO FOODS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, CORVEL CORPORATION

The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the case for further proceedings concerning attorney Mark Leeds' petition to be relieved as applicant's counsel. Leeds argued ineffective communication with the applicant necessitated his withdrawal, while the WCJ initially denied the petition, citing insufficient detail regarding the breakdown of communication. The Board found that due to attorney-client privilege, Leeds was appropriately limited in his explanation and outlined procedures for the WCJ to address the petition.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Be Relieved as AttorneyWCAB Rule 10774Code of Civil Procedure Section 284Serious and Willful MisconductBreakdown in CommunicationIn Camera DiscussionState Bar Rule 1.6Duty of ConfidentialityAttorney Withdrawal
References
0
Case No. ADJ10161297
Regular
Nov 17, 2017

LUIS CHAVEZ vs. SYSCO, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's (WCJ) findings. The WCJ found the applicant not to be a credible witness, largely due to discrepancies between his reported limitations and observed activities in subrosa video evidence. Consequently, the WCJ determined that the applicant failed to prove his injury arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment (AOE/COE). The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to warrant overturning it.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCredibility DeterminationSubrosa VideoAOE/COERange of MotionAMA GuidelinesSubstantial Medical EvidenceCausationModified Work
References
9
Case No. ADJ7106688, ADJ7106693, ADJ7503858
Regular
Mar 26, 2013

DAVID GUZMAN vs. SYSCO FOODS, ZURICH AMERICAN AND AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant seeking reconsideration of a decision denying his claim for a psychiatric injury. While the Board would have admitted the applicant's medical reports, they found these reports lacked substantial evidence. Specifically, the reports were deemed unreliable as it was unclear if the conclusions were based on Dr. Curtis's own examination or a collaborative effort, failing to meet the burden of proof for industrial causation. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings Award and OrdersIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryPermanent DisabilityCumulative TraumaPsyche InjuryAdmissibility of ReportsLabor Code Section 5703
References
3
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