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. ADJ9442434
Regular
Oct 05, 2018

JUAN HERNANDEZ vs. TAYLOR FRESH FOODS, dba RIVER RANCH FRESH FOODS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, *Hernandez v. Taylor Fresh Foods*, involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed as untimely. The Board found that the petition was filed over 25 days after the administrative law judge's decision, exceeding the jurisdictional deadline. Proof of mailing was insufficient; the petition needed to be *received* by the Board within the statutory period. Consequently, the Board lacked the authority to review the petition's merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845(a)WCAB Rule 10392(a)Proof of Mailing InsufficientMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. Hagler
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. United States

Plaintiffs George A. Taylor and Sally Taylor brought an action against the United States under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) for personal injuries Mr. Taylor sustained on February 4, 1994. Mr. Taylor slipped on icy snow while entering the Cicero-Clay Post Office in Cicero, New York. The case was tried without a jury, commencing on November 16, 1998, in Syracuse, New York. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, claiming the defendant failed to maintain safe premises, but the defendant denied negligence and lack of notice. Applying New York state law, the court required proof that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous icy conditions. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the sidewalk's dangerous condition prior to the incident, as no complaints were made before Taylor's slip. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs did not establish negligence on the part of the defendant.

Federal Tort Claims ActFTCANegligenceSlip and FallIcy ConditionsPost OfficePremises LiabilityActual NoticeConstructive NoticeFederal Court
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suarez v. Food Emporium, Inc.

Plaintiff, a job coach for Casita Unida Clubhouse, was injured after slipping on a wet floor while filling in for a transitional employee at defendant Food Emporium. Although he received workers' compensation benefits, plaintiff also commenced a personal injury action against Food Emporium. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was barred because plaintiff was a 'special employee' of Food Emporium. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed. The court determined, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was a special employee due to Food Emporium's control over his work, thus dismissing the complaint.

Summary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarPersonal InjuryControl and DirectionAppellate ReviewDeli DepartmentJob CoachEmployer LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 1994

United States v. Taylor

Matthew Taylor, a co-founder of United Brooklyn (UB), was convicted of attempted extortion and extortion under the Hobbs Act at two construction sites where Flintlock Construction Company was the principal contractor. Taylor moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence linked him directly to extorting "money for a Coordinator and employment for members of United Brooklyn" as charged in Counts Twenty-Two and Twenty-Four. He also sought a new trial citing recanted testimony from a key witness, Andrew Weiss. The court denied both motions, concluding that the evidence, including Taylor's role as the de facto head of UB and his active involvement in its extortionate schemes, sufficiently supported the conviction under an aiding and abetting theory. The court found that the alleged recantation was not material and did not undermine the verdict, given the compelling evidence of Taylor's guilt in a "long and persistent scheme" of extortion.

Hobbs ActExtortionAttempted ExtortionConspiracyAiding and AbettingConstruction IndustryRacketeeringOrganized CrimeMotion for AcquittalMotion for New Trial
References
15
Case No. ADJ8334684
Regular
Sep 09, 2013

ABEL RODRIGUEZ vs. RIVER RANCH FRESH FOODS, LLC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Abel Rodriguez, filed a petition for reconsideration after an adverse ruling. The applicant alleged an industrial injury to his back sustained on December 31, 2011, while employed by River Ranch Fresh Foods, LLC. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the findings of the administrative law judge. The judge found the applicant’s testimony regarding the injury and its reporting to be credible and unrebutted, despite minor inconsistencies that did not materially impact his credibility. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determinations, affirming the denial of reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder DenyingCredibilityAOE/COELabor Code Section 3202.5Witness TestimonyImpeachmentMedical EvidenceCausation
References
1
Case No. ADJ10651475 ADJ10762532
Regular
Aug 30, 2018

ROSENDA RODRIGUEZ vs. FAIRWAY STAFFING, SOLVIS STAFFING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, FRESH GRILL FOODS, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether Solvis Staffing was a concurrent employer. The initial finding identified Fairway Staffing as the general employer and Fresh Grill Foods as the special employer for applicant's injuries. However, evidence suggests Solvis, as a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), may have also been an employer, creating a potential overlap in coverage. The Board found the record underdeveloped regarding Solvis' PEO role and payroll responsibility, thus remanding the case to the trial level for further investigation.

PEOProfessional Employer Organizationconcurrent employergeneral employerspecial employerJoint Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWCJReport and Recommendationrescinded
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arcadi v. Nestle Foods Corp.

This class action, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), involved employees and former employees of Nestle Foods Corporation who sought overtime compensation for time spent changing into and out of mandatory uniforms. The defendant, Nestle, moved for summary judgment, arguing that this time was non-compensable based on an established "custom or practice" under their collective bargaining agreement, as permitted by FLSA § 203(o). Plaintiffs contended they never explicitly agreed to forgo such compensation. The court examined prior case law on Section 203(o) and found compelling similarities, noting that the employees effectively bargained away their right to compensation for clothes-changing time in exchange for other concessions. Consequently, the court granted Nestle's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Collective Bargaining AgreementOvertime CompensationUniform PolicyClothes-Changing TimeSummary JudgmentClass Action LawsuitCustom or PracticeLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Tarpon Cove, Ltd. & Taylor Woodrow Blitman Property Corp. of Florida

Tarpon, a Florida property owner, entered a management and development agreement with Taylor, which included a New York arbitration clause. After Tarpon unilaterally terminated the agreement, a dispute arose over termination and reimbursement costs. Tarpon initiated an action in Florida, prompting Taylor to demand arbitration for both parties' claims. Special Term initially granted Tarpon's motion to stay arbitration, ruling the clause was nullified by termination. The appellate court reversed, holding that a unilateral termination does not extinguish a broad arbitration clause and that issues regarding the agreement's termination and alleged breaches are matters for arbitration. The court also ordered a stay of the related Florida action pending arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementContract TerminationStay of ArbitrationCompelling ArbitrationCross-MotionFlorida LitigationNew York LawUnilateral TerminationBreach of ContractAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jacobs v. Dellwood Foods

Claimant, a truck driver for Dellwood Foods, was injured when a company truck ran over his foot while he was walking to the company parking lot after purchasing lunch. Initially, the Workers' Compensation Board awarded compensation, but later rescinded it, finding the accident not to be in the course of employment. Dellwood Foods and its carrier appealed this reversal. The court analyzed whether the accident, occurring on a public sidewalk, fell within the "gray area" of employment, considering the presence of a Dellwood truck as a special hazard and the claimant's normal route. The court found both elements present, concluding the accident was compensable. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision that denied compensation and reinstated the original awards made to the claimant.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentGray Area DoctrineSpecial HazardRoute to WorkPublic Sidewalk InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard ReversalJurisdictional ReviewAccident Compensability
References
7
Case No. 2023-00083 (Index No. 11032/18)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2024

Miolan v. Milmar Food Group, LLC

Alquidania Miolan appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which granted summary judgment to Milmar Food Group, LLC, and Milmar Food Group II, LLC. Miolan sought damages for personal injuries from a slip and fall at a facility operated by the Milmar defendants, where she was employed through a staffing agency. The Milmar defendants successfully argued that Miolan's claims were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, asserting they were her 'special employer.' The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Milmar defendants had established, prima facie, their status as Miolan's special employer. Consequently, the court concluded that Miolan's claims were barred by the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployerSummary JudgmentPersonal InjurySlip and FallAppellate ReviewExclusivity ProvisionStaffing AgencyOrange CountyPremises Liability
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 644 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