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. 2015-05-0619
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

Baumgardner, William v. UPS

William Baumgardner, a delivery driver, sustained a left-knee injury while working for UPS in 2014. He sought permanent disability benefits, arguing the injury, including a medial meniscus tear, was compensable and that the employer's provided medical panel was invalid. The Workers' Compensation Judge denied the claim for permanent disability benefits, finding Mr. Baumgardner failed to prove the medial meniscus tear was primarily caused by the work injury and did not establish entitlement to PTD or PPD benefits under the AMA Guides. However, the court found the employer's initial medical panel invalid due to geographic limitations and ordered UPS to provide a new panel of orthopedic specialists for ongoing medical treatment.

Knee InjuryMedical Panel DisputePermanent Disability DenialCausation of InjuryAMA GuidesTreating Physician OpinionIME ReportVocational DisabilityTennessee LawWorkers' Compensation Judge
References
7
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01691
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2025

Matter of Sutphin v. UPS

Wiley Sutphin, a UPS driver, sustained work-related injuries across three separate claims. The Special Fund was held liable for the first two claims, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation (LM) for the third. A WCLJ declined to apportion liability among the claims. LM sought Board review for the third claim, requesting apportionment, but failed to file separate applications for the other two claims as instructed by a Workers' Compensation Board advisory directive. The Board denied LM's application, citing non-compliance. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the Board's directive requiring separate filings was not explicitly stated on the form, in its instructions, or in the Board's regulations. Consequently, the Board's denial of review constituted an abuse of discretion, and the case was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureBoard ReviewAdministrative LawAbuse of DiscretionClaim ApportionmentForm Submission GuidelinesRegulatory ComplianceNew York CourtsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. 2017-06-1778
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2018

Demotte, Julie v. UPS

Julie Demotte sustained a workplace injury involving a broken hip and leg in November 2016 while working for UPS. UPS initially accepted the claim and provided temporary disability benefits. Dr. Jason Evans, the authorized treating physician, placed Ms. Demotte at maximum medical improvement and assigned a three-percent whole-person impairment rating. A compensation hearing was held to determine Ms. Demotte's entitlement to permanent disability, temporary disability, and future medical benefits. The Court ordered UPS to provide lifetime medical benefits for Ms. Demotte's workplace injury, but denied her claims for both temporary and permanent disability benefits. The denial of permanent disability was based on the inadmissibility of Form C-30A as proof of impairment, as Ms. Demotte failed to present admissible evidence. Additionally, the claim for further temporary disability benefits was denied due to an earlier overpayment by UPS that exceeded any subsequent amounts due.

Workplace InjuryFuture Medical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsPermanent Disability BenefitsAdmissibility of Medical ReportsForm C-30AForm C-32Impairment RatingHearsayMaximum Medical Improvement
References
2
Case No. 2017-08-1205
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2018

Washington, John v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc.

John Washington, an employee of UPS Ground Freight, Inc., requested additional medical and temporary disability benefits for a September 7, 2017 work injury. UPS maintained it had paid all entitled benefits and had provided multiple panels of neurologists, which Mr. Washington largely rejected due to subjective concerns. The Court found that UPS had complied with its statutory duty to provide physicians, but Mr. Washington had not complied with his duty to choose one. The Court ordered UPS to allow Mr. Washington to choose another neurologist from the previously provided panels, warning that benefits could remain suspended if he failed to comply. The Court denied Mr. Washington's requests for payment of unauthorized emergency room bills, personal care assistant payments, additional temporary disability benefits, and adjustments to his wage rate calculation, concluding that his refusal to accept medical services justified the suspension of temporary benefits.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityExpedited HearingNeurology EvaluationPost-Concussion SyndromeWage Rate CalculationUnauthorized TreatmentPhysician PanelEmployee Non-Compliance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AIG Europe (Netherlands), N v. v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.

Plaintiff AIG Europe (Netherlands), N.V. ("AIG") initiated a subrogation action against Defendant UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. ("UPS") following damage to an x-ray machine during shipment. AIG, acting as the insurer for Philips Medical Systems Nederlands, B.V., asserted claims for breach of contract, bailment obligations, and tort. UPS sought summary judgment to limit its liability to $9,479.61, while AIG cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing against the enforceability of any liability limitation and its invalidity under the Carmack Amendment. The Court denied both motions for summary judgment on the contractual liability issues, citing genuine disputes of material fact regarding the existence and terms of a binding agreement between the parties. Furthermore, the applicability of the Carmack Amendment and the material deviation doctrine could not be determined as a matter of law. However, UPS's motion for summary judgment on AIG's tort claim was granted as it was unopposed.

SubrogationContract LawBailmentTort LawSummary JudgmentCarmack AmendmentInterstate CommerceLimitation of LiabilityShipping DamageX-ray Machine
References
50
Case No. 2017-06-0413
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2017

Foriest, James v. UPS

James Foriest, a UPS employee, sought medical treatment and temporary disability benefits for a dislocated right knee patella sustained during a work break. The Court determined the injury occurred in the course and scope of his employment but found it did not primarily arise out of his employment. Despite a medical opinion linking the injury to his work, the Court noted that an injury from merely walking on level ground is generally not compensable without an additional employment hazard. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Foriest's request for benefits, scheduling a further hearing.

Knee InjuryPatellar DislocationMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsEmployment CausationCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentExpedited HearingDelivery Driver InjuryPersonal Comfort Doctrine
References
10
Case No. 533217
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2022

Matter of Kromer v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions

Claimant Douglas A. Kromer established a workers' compensation claim for a work-related rotator cuff tear in his left shoulder. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found a 35% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the left arm, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this to 20%, crediting the opinion of Gerald Coniglio, an orthopedic surgeon. The Board further ruled that Kromer was not entitled to a further SLU award due to prior left elbow SLU awards totaling 30%, which exceeded the current 20% award. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter for further consideration. The court found that the Board failed to consider whether the shoulder injury resulted in an increased loss of use of the left arm beyond the prior elbow injuries and also lacked a rational basis for not adding value for a posterior extension defect in the SLU calculation, departing from its own precedent.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Rotator Cuff InjuryShoulder InjuryLeft ArmPrior Injury OffsetMedical OpinionImpairment GuidelinesAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DiDomenico v. C & S Aeromatik Supplies, Inc.

The plaintiff, Frank DiDomenico, was injured by a leaking hazardous material package while employed by United Parcel Service (UPS). UPS's subsequent dilatory responses to discovery demands and willful destruction of crucial evidence, including the package and related records, prevented DiDomenico from identifying and suing the third-party shipper. This conduct also prejudiced co-defendant CA Aromatics Co., which destroyed its own records due to UPS's delays. The appellate court reversed the lower court's denial of sanctions, finding UPS's actions constituted willful non-compliance with court orders and spoliation of evidence. Consequently, UPS's answer was stricken, and summary judgment was granted to DiDomenico against UPS for impairing his right to sue, and to CA Aromatics Co. for indemnification.

Spoliation of EvidenceSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsCPLR 3126Workers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionHazardous MaterialsDocument DestructionAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkendall v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

The case involves William Kirkendall and other UPS employees suing UPS under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after suffering back and other injuries due to a policy change requiring lifting heavier packages. Plaintiffs allege UPS refused accommodations. The court first addresses UPS's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the ADA claim should go to arbitration per the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The court, citing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., denies this motion, stating that individual statutory rights under the ADA are not waived by a CBA. The court then considers UPS's motion for summary judgment, arguing Kirkendall is not disabled under the ADA or cannot perform essential job functions. The court finds Kirkendall's degenerative disk disease and associated lifting and sitting limitations (e.g., inability to lift over 30 lbs, sit for more than 3 hours) do not constitute a 'substantial limitation' of a 'major life activity' as defined by the ADA, nor has he shown he is restricted from a class or broad range of jobs. Therefore, the court grants summary judgment to UPS, dismissing the complaint.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Disability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentArbitration ClauseCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Statutory RightsContractual RightsSubstantial LimitationMajor Life Activity
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

George Lewis, a millwright, sued United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) for negligence after sustaining an injury to his foot from a conveyor belt at a UPS facility in 1999. Lewis appealed a jury verdict that found UPS not negligent and Lewis negligent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling on seven issues. These issues included the trial court's refusal to submit a jury question on UPS's right to control, alleged errors in admitting hearsay and denying voir dire, denial of a mistrial related to workers' compensation testimony, admission of expert testimony, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings of no negligence by UPS and negligence by Lewis.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkplace AccidentConveyor Belt InjuryLockout/TagoutJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceHearsay EvidenceVoir Dire
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 78 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