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
Apr 16, 2012

Cioffi v. Target Corp.

Peter Cioffi, an employee of Communication Technology Services (CTS), was injured after falling from a ladder while working at a Target store. He and his wife sued Target Corporation and related entities (the Target defendants), alleging, among other things, a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment to dismiss this claim, but later, upon reargument, granted them. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's reargument decision, thereby reinstating the original denial of summary judgment against the Target defendants. The court found that it could not be determined as a matter of law that the injured plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident or that he was a recalcitrant worker, nor was the activity unprotected under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentReargumentAppellate ReviewLadder FallWorkplace AccidentConstruction SiteContractor LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
9
Case No. ADJ1781751 (SJO 0264172) ADJ4460330 (SJO 0264178) ADJ3361342 (SJO 0266633)
Regular
Jan 14, 2010

SARA MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ vs. TARGET STORES, Permissibly Self-Insured; SEDGWICK CMS, TPA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Target Stores' petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's award to Sara Martinez-Rodriguez. The Board found Target's argument that the applicant's 2002 absence from work was for personal reasons unsubstantiated, upholding the temporary disability finding. The Board also affirmed the WCJ's use of the 1997 permanent disability rating schedule for the 1998 and 2002 injuries, primarily because Target failed to issue the required Section 4061 notice due to its own misconduct in not paying temporary disability benefits. The Board disagreed with the WCJ's secondary rationale for applying the older schedule based on the AME's post-2005 report, finding it insufficient on its own.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityRating ScheduleLabor Code Section 4061Agreed Medical Examiner (AME)Pre-2005 Injuries1997 Rating Schedule
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2008

Felipe v. Target Corp.

The plaintiff, Thelma Felipe, sued Target Corporation and Kingsbridge in New York state court after slipping and falling in a Target store. Target removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Felipe moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 and that complete diversity was lacking due to Kingsbridge, a New York corporation, being a co-defendant. The court denied Felipe's motion, finding that the amount in controversy was likely over $75,000, as conceded by plaintiff's counsel. The court also determined that Target's principal place of business is Minnesota, establishing diversity with Felipe (a New York resident), and concluded that Kingsbridge was fraudulently joined, as there was no possibility of recovery against them under New York law because they had no contractual obligation to maintain the interior of the store where the injury occurred.

Diversity JurisdictionRemovalRemandAmount in ControversyComplete DiversityFraudulent JoinderSlip and FallPersonal InjuryCorporate CitizenshipNerve Center Test
References
20
Case No. 15-cv-4357 (PAC)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cory Chavis, an Asset Protection Manager at a Walmart in Suffern, New York, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Chavis sought a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays due to her Sabbath observance. While initially requiring her to use vacation days, Walmart later granted her accommodation. Chavis subsequently claimed a hostile work environment and discriminatory denial of seventeen promotions. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims of failure to accommodate and hostile work environment, as well as most promotion claims. However, it denied summary judgment on Chavis's retaliation claim and promotion claims for specific MAPM and ASM positions, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSabbath AccommodationWalmartEmployment LawNew York Law
References
48
Case No. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685), ADJ3521523 (OAK 0322592), ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
Jan 25, 2016

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by Pamela Zeilstra against Target Stores. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not a final order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. Furthermore, the WCAB denied removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and noted the petition's unverified status as an additional ground for dismissal. The Board found the unverified petition for removal lacked a compelling excuse and had not been cured within a reasonable time, as required by WCAB rules.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
8
Case No. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685), ADJ3521523 (WCK 0322592), ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
May 16, 2014

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Pamela Zeilstra against Target Stores and Sedgwick CMS. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely and not filed from a final order, as required by Labor Code section 5900. The Board clarified that interlocutory procedural orders, which do not determine substantive rights, are not subject to reconsideration. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely PetitionFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiability DeterminationWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and Recommendation
References
5
Case No. ADJ2727430 (OAK 0287969)
Regular
May 22, 2009

RHONDA ANDERSON vs. TARGET STORES, P.S.I., SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

In *Anderson v. Target Stores*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reconsidered an award of attorney fees under Labor Code § 4607. The Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant was not entitled to the fees. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in *Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, which limited § 4607 attorney fees to cases where an employer seeks to terminate an entire award of medical treatment, not just challenge a specific treatment request. Therefore, the Board vacated the prior award of attorney fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code §4607Attorney FeesReconsiderationUtilization ReviewPrimary Treating PhysicianSmith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Interferential UnitStipulations with Request for AwardNew and Further Disability
References
3
Case No. 10-CV-5255 (ERK)(LB)
Regular Panel Decision

Rosario v. Valentine Avenue Discount Store, Co.

Plaintiff Julian Rosario filed a collective action lawsuit against multiple discount stores and Raymond Srour, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff sought conditional certification of the collective action, production of potential opt-in plaintiffs' information, and authorization to circulate a notice of pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, granted the plaintiff's motion. The decision was based on a 'modest factual showing' that employees across several stores were subject to a common policy of wage and hour violations, despite initial concerns about the scope of the class and the definition of similarly situated employees. The court outlined specific modifications for the notice of pendency, including defining the class as 'non-managerial employees who performed work related to the receipt, stocking, or sale of merchandise, or general maintenance/cleaning of the store,' and also addressed the content and dissemination of the notice, and the production of employee information.

FLSANew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum WageCollective ActionConditional CertificationEmployee RightsEmployer LiabilityRetail Industry
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ifill v. Saha Food Stores

Plaintiff Humphrey Ifill, an electrician, sustained severe burn injuries on January 17, 1994, while replacing a circuit breaker in an energized electrical panel at a supermarket owned by defendants Saha Food Stores, Pioneer Supermarkets, and 5610 Fifth Realty Corporation. He alleged that the store manager and owner refused his requests to de-energize the circuit, thereby forcing him to work under unsafe conditions. Ifill filed an action against the defendants, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. During the proceedings, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, concluding that there was a triable issue of fact concerning the defendants' control over the plaintiff's work methods.

Electrician InjuryWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkSupervisory ControlEnergized EquipmentBurn InjuriesComparative Negligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Planning Board

Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval in the Town of North Elba for a retail store. Respondent, the Planning Board, denied the application, citing adverse visual impact, effects on community character, and non-compliance with the Town Land Use Code after a SEQRA review and public hearing. Wal-Mart challenged this denial as arbitrary, capricious, and lacking substantial evidence, also alleging Open Meetings Law violations. The Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division retained jurisdiction, applying a rationality standard, and ultimately confirmed the Planning Board's determination, dismissing Wal-Mart's petition.

Conditional Use PermitSite Plan ApprovalState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning BoardJudicial ReviewRationality StandardAesthetic ImpactCommunity CharacterTown Land Use CodeOpen Meetings Law
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 445 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