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

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. 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. 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

Faraino v. Centennial Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer, having received a loan receipt from its insured, has a duty of good faith beyond mere payment. The court holds that such a duty is created by equity, implied contractual covenants, and the conflict of interest arising from the insurer's exclusive control over the insured's claims. The plaintiff boat owner alleged the insurers failed to provide independent counsel, policy information, or investigation results, potentially breaching this obligation. Consequently, the insurers' motion for summary judgment and dismissal was denied, affirming their proper joinder as defendants. The court also raises the possibility that the insurers' conduct could constitute a waiver of their subrogation rights.

Good Faith DutyInsurer ObligationsLoan ReceiptSubrogation RightsConflict of InterestInsurance Contract LawSummary Judgment DenialAttorney FeesEquitable PrinciplesContractual Subrogation
References
24
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. CV-24-0555
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Wiley Sutphin

This case involves an appeal by UPS and Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation (LM) from a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision. The WCB had denied LM's application for Board review concerning the apportionment of liability among three separate workers' compensation claims filed by Wiley Sutphin. The denial was based on LM's failure to file a separate copy of the RB-89 form for each claim, as advised by WCB Subject No. 046-1106R. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed the WCB's decision. The court found that the WCB's directive regarding separate filings was not explicitly stated on the RB-89 form, in its instructions, or in the Board's regulations (12 NYCRR 300.13 [b] [3]), thereby concluding that the Board's denial constituted an abuse of discretion. The matter is remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard Review ApplicationProcedural RulesForm RB-89Multiple ClaimsApportionment of LiabilityAbuse of DiscretionAdministrative LawFiling Requirements
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mohertus Trading Co. v. United Parcel Service Co.

Plaintiff Mohertus Trading Company sued defendant United Parcel Service (UPS) for $10,497, alleging loss of goods during shipping. Mohertus claims its agent mistakenly undervalued the goods at $6,000 instead of $16,000 due to an error by a UPS agent during repackaging. UPS reimbursed Mohertus $6,000, asserting full satisfaction of their contract. Mohertus seeks to recover the full $16,000, implicitly asking the court to reform the contract based on mutual mistake. The court, noting the case falls under the Carmack Amendment, found that Mohertus raised a genuine issue of fact regarding mutual mistake, making a trial necessary to determine the parties' intent and the reasonableness of the agent's reliance. Consequently, UPS's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Contract DisputeMutual MistakeSummary Judgment MotionCarrier LiabilityCarmack AmendmentInterstate ShipmentGoods LostShipping InsuranceValuation DisputeContract Reformation
References
9
Case No. ADJ7712746
Regular
Dec 08, 2015

Glen Rizuto vs. United Parcel Service, Gallagher Bassett

The Appeals Board granted UPS's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order to negotiate a QME selection. The Board found the WCJ erred by not addressing UPS's contentions regarding the validity of the second QME panel issued over 24 months after the first. UPS successfully argued they would be prejudiced if forced to negotiate when the second panel was allegedly the only valid one. The Board ordered parties to select a QME from the July 2, 2014 panel, allowing each to strike one name.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel SelectionCumulative Trauma InjuryLabor Code Section 4062.1Labor Code Section 4062.2Romero v. Costco WholesaleIrreparable HarmPrejudiceMedical Unit
References
3
Case No. ADJ2971436 (OAK 0253681)
Regular
Sep 25, 2012

CRAIG GONSALVES vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award and found no violation of Labor Code section 132a by UPS. The Board determined that the applicant failed to prove UPS discriminated against him by terminating his employment on August 20, 1999, or June 20, 2001. Furthermore, the Board found the applicant did not establish that UPS refused to allow him to return to work between June 26, 2000, and May 23, 2001, due to his industrial injury or that he received disparate treatment. The applicant did not demonstrate the availability of modified duty or that the employer's actions were not necessitated by business realities.

Labor Code section 132aWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardApplicantEmployerIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryTerminationReturn to Work
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 289 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