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. 2020 NY Slip Op 07642
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Thomas (US Pack Logistics, LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Aston R. Thomas, a claimant, was hired by US Pack Logistics, LLC to deliver blood samples. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that Thomas was an employee of US Pack Logistics, LLC, making the company liable for unemployment insurance contributions. US Pack Logistics, LLC appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship, noting that US Pack Logistics, LLC exercised sufficient supervision, direction, and control over significant aspects of Thomas's work, despite Thomas using his own vehicle and not being reimbursed for expenses. The court emphasized that the determination of an employment relationship is a question of fact, and the Board's decision, if supported by substantial evidence, is beyond further judicial review.

Unemployment Insurance LawEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance ContributionsLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardJudiciary Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ8522912
Regular

CONNIE LOZANO vs. TRINO PACKING AND COOLING, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Connie Lozano's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being unverified and failing to state valid grounds for reconsideration as required by law. The WCAB also indicated that even if these procedural defects were absent, the petition would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionGrounds for ReconsiderationWCJ Report and RecommendationDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLab. Code § 5902Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8§ 10842Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swift Independent Packing Co. v. District Union Local One

This case involves a dispute between Swift Independent Packing Company and District Union Local One over a labor arbitration award. Swift sought to vacate the award, which was issued by Arbitrator Mario A. Procopio and favored the Union regarding work schedules and overtime pay under a collective bargaining agreement. Swift raised several objections, including alleged arbitrator bias, reliance on facts not in evidence, the award lacking essence from the agreement, and refusal to hear testimony. The District Court, emphasizing its limited scope of review over arbitration awards, denied Swift's motion for summary judgment to vacate the award and granted the Union's motion to confirm it, concluding that no grounds for vacatur existed and that Swift had waived its right to object to the alleged bias.

Labor ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardVacatur of AwardConfirmation of AwardArbitrator BiasJudicial ReviewWaiver DoctrineOvertime PayWork Schedules
References
19
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02032 [228 AD3d 20]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2024

Air-Sea Packing Group, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Air-Sea Packing Group, Inc. against Applied Underwriters, Inc. and its affiliates. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants marketed and sold an unlawful workers' compensation insurance program, EquityComp, in violation of New York Insurance Law. The defendants attempted to enforce a forum selection clause mandating litigation in Nebraska, but the court found this clause unenforceable. This decision was based on public policy, as the program violated New York law, and because Nebraska courts had previously deemed New York the more appropriate forum for such disputes. The ruling allows the plaintiff to pursue claims for declaratory relief, equitable rescission, common-law fraud, and violation of General Business Law § 349 in New York.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceForum Selection ClausePublic PolicyInsurance Law ViolationsEquitable RescissionCommon-Law FraudDeceptive PracticesGeneral Business Law § 349Unlawful Reinsurance AgreementRegulatory Oversight
References
52
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07909 [155 AD3d 1208]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2017

NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. People Care Inc.

Plaintiff, a self-insured trust, commenced a collection action against defendant, a former member, for unpaid assessments related to workers' compensation claims. Defendant counterclaimed and filed a third-party action against Cool Insuring Agency, the trust's administrators, alleging mismanagement. During discovery, a dispute arose over a report commissioned by defendant's counsel from a consultant, which Cool and plaintiff sought to compel. Defendant asserted attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, and material prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Supreme Court partially granted the motions to compel, a decision largely affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department, with a modification regarding a specific email exchange found to be protected attorney work product.

Discovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeAttorney Work ProductMaterial Prepared for LitigationSelf-Insurance TrustWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentThird-Party ActionClaims Administration
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hilbert v. Sahlen Packing Co.

The plaintiff sustained personal injuries after being ejected from a bucket truck while removing a utility pole. The plaintiff initiated an action against Sahlen Packing Company, the premises owner, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Sahlen subsequently impleaded Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, the plaintiff's employer. Sahlen appealed an order granting summary judgment to Niagara Mohawk, which resulted in the dismissal of the third-party complaint under the 1996 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Sahlen contended that these amendments violated due process, constituted an unfair taking, impaired contractual obligations, and should not be applied retroactively, also arguing a triable issue of fact existed concerning grave injury. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff did not suffer a "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that the amendments applied as the accident occurred post-enactment and the action commenced in March 1997. Additionally, Sahlen’s constitutional challenges to the amendments were deemed without merit.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryDue Process ChallengeTakings ClauseContract ImpairmentRetroactive ApplicationSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionLabor LawFacial Disfigurement
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01470 [192 AD3d 1315]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2021

Matter of McLaughlin v. Sahlen Packing Co., Inc.

Kelly A. McLaughlin filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits after her husband died at work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, determining his death was causally related to employment. The employer appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing it had overcome the presumption of Workers' Compensation Law § 21 and that the claimant lacked sufficient evidence of causal relation. The Board denied the employer's application for review due to non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b), specifically failing to provide a complete response to question 15 on form RB-89 regarding the date an objection was interposed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as the employer's response was patently defective.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsApplication for Board ReviewProcedural ComplianceForm RB-89Administrative Review DenialCausally Related EmploymentAppellate ReviewFailure to Complete FormObjection DateDiscretionary Denial
References
13
Case No. ADJ1298866 (LAO 0791081) ADJ4098623 (LAO 0855391)
Regular
Feb 10, 2009

MIGUEL NOBOA vs. COUGHERTY PACKING COMPANY

In Noboa v. Cougherty Packing Company, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the applicant's failure to verify the petition, a mandatory requirement under Labor Code section 5902. This procedural defect rendered the petition invalid, leading the WCAB to reject it. The WCAB cited relevant case law supporting its decision to dismiss unverified petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedVerifiedLabor Code section 5902Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJSmith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals BoardLucena v. Workers' Comp. Appeals BoardSignificant Panel DecisionPermit
References
2
Case No. 1476-14
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2017

Belair Care Ctr., Inc. v. Cool Insuring Agency, Inc.

Healthcare providers, members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), sued insurance brokers after the trust's insolvency led to statutory assessments. Plaintiffs alleged negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting. Defendants moved for dismissal based on statute of limitations and failure to state a cause of action. The court dismissed several claims including conversion, unjust enrichment, GBL § 349, RICO, common-law indemnification, and negligence. It also dismissed claims by specific plaintiffs and against certain defendants for negligent misrepresentation and fraud, and other claims against the HUB Defendants. However, several claims were not dismissed against other defendants and will proceed to discovery.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Insurance BrokersStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissNegligent MisrepresentationFraudBreach of ContractAiding and AbettingFiduciary Duty
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wade v. Atlantic Cooling Tower Servs., Inc.

The plaintiff, injured while disassembling a sprinkler system on a cooling tower leased by 58/59 Acquisition Co., LP, sued for common-law negligence and Labor Law violations (§§ 200, 240(1), 241(6)). The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all counts. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to the defendant on the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, finding no evidence of the defendant's supervisory control. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the defendant on the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, concluding that the dismantling constituted "altering" and "demolition" of a structure. Furthermore, the Appellate Division searched the record and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1).

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyWorkplace AccidentNegligenceDuty to SuperviseStatutory InterpretationElevated Work
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 102 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