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

Double Green Produce, Inc. v. Forum Supermarket Inc.

Plaintiff Double Green Produce, Inc. sued Defendants Forum Supermarket Inc. and Hong Wen Cai for failure to pay for wholesale produce under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) and other claims. After Defendants defaulted, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. Although initially recommended for denial due to jurisdictional concerns, the Court allowed Plaintiff to submit additional information. Upon review, the Court found Forum to be a PACA 'dealer' and that Plaintiff had preserved its trust rights. The Court determined Defendants' default was willful and that Defendant Cai was personally liable for dissipating trust assets. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding $23,080.75 in damages, $5579.82 in prejudgment interest, and $4074.25 in attorneys' fees, totaling $32,734.82.

PACAPerishable Agricultural CommoditiesDefault JudgmentBreach of ContractStatutory TrustFiduciary DutyInterstate CommerceWholesale ProduceDamages AwardPrejudgment Interest
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Farm Workers National Union v. Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc.

Plaintiff United Farm Workers National Union (UFW) sued defendant Sloan’s Supermarkets, Inc., for misusing its Aztec Eagle certification mark, alleging violations of federal trademark and unfair competition laws. UFW sought a preliminary injunction, claiming irreparable harm to its consumer boycott of non-UFW lettuce and public deception. The court acknowledged instances of non-UFW lettuce being sold under the UFW mark but found them to be due to employee error, not deliberate malice. Sloan’s demonstrated good faith in addressing the issue. The court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that UFW did not show immediate, irreparable injury strong enough to justify such an extraordinary remedy, and that an injunction would cause considerable harm to Sloan's business reputation given its good faith efforts.

trademark infringementunfair competitionpreliminary injunctionconsumer boycottUFWAztec Eaglegood faithirreparable injuryjudicial discretionlabor dispute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2010

Blyer v. ONE STOP KOSHER SUPERMARKET, INC.

Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of NLRB Region 29, petitioned the District Court for interim relief against One Stop Kosher Supermarket, Inc. under 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). The Director sought an order compelling One Stop to bargain with Local 338, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, after One Stop failed to honor a recognition agreement. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found the recognition agreement binding. The District Court granted the petition, finding reasonable cause for unfair labor practices and irreparable harm to the Union's collective bargaining rights, ordering One Stop to provide information and bargain, but stipulating that any agreement not be implemented until the NLRB's final decision.

National Labor Relations BoardUnfair Labor PracticesInterim InjunctionCollective BargainingUnion RecognitionLabor LawDistrict CourtSection 10(j)Employer-Union RelationsMandatary Injunction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonacci v. Treffiletti Supermarkets, Inc.

Plaintiff, a meat cutter, sustained finger lacerations while operating a band saw during the course of his employment in July 1989. He subsequently filed for and received workers’ compensation benefits. Alleging negligence and strict products liability, plaintiff commenced a personal injury action against Treffiletti Supermarkets, Inc. and Hobart Manufacturing Company, Inc. Defendant Treffiletti Supermarkets, Inc. moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy was through workers' compensation benefits. The Supreme Court denied this motion, citing a factual dispute regarding the plaintiff's actual employer. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the Workers’ Compensation Board had identified Treffiletti as an employer, which barred the plaintiff's action against Treffiletti under the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court clarified that the involvement of multiple employers did not negate these provisions. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded to Treffiletti Supermarkets, Inc., and the complaint against it was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityBand Saw AccidentCo-employmentAppellate ReviewCPLR 3212Workers' Compensation LawNegligence
References
4
Case No. ADJ6805766
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

YESENIA TORRES vs. VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES dba VALLARTA SUPERMARKET NO. 19, CNA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal. The defendant argued that continuing a hearing for further medical documentation would cause irreparable harm and that discovery should have closed. However, the Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration after a final decision would be an adequate remedy. The applicant's due diligence in obtaining a required report from the primary treating physician, despite conflicting information about its transcription status, supported the WCJ's decision to continue the matter.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code section 4061.5Primary Treating PhysicianPQMEStatute of LimitationsDue DiligenceInterlocutory OrderSubstantial Prejudice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaplin v. Pathmark Supermarkets

This case addresses a motion by defendants, including Supermarkets General Corp., for a protective order to vacate the plaintiff Mimi Chaplin's notice for discovery and inspection of accident reports. Mimi Chaplin sought these reports after sustaining personal injuries from a fall at the defendant's premises. The court, presided over by Justice James F. Niehoff, analyzed the newly enacted CPLR 3101 (g), which mandates full disclosure of accident reports prepared in the regular course of business. The court found that the accident report in question was prepared in Supermarkets General Corp.'s regular course of business, rendering it discoverable regardless of its potential use in litigation, thus denying the defendants' motion.

DiscoveryProtective OrderAccident ReportsCPLR 3101(g)Litigation PreparationRegular Course of BusinessPersonal InjuryNegligenceDisclosureEvidence
References
10
Case No. ADJ8186610
Regular
Apr 11, 2014

MARIA RODRIGUEZ vs. VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., dba VALLARTA SUPERMARKETS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Lien claimant North Valley Diagnostics' Petition for Reconsideration was granted after its lien was dismissed for failure to appear at a lien conference. The Appeals Board found sufficient cause, primarily an inadvertent calendaring error supported by prior diligent actions like paying fees and appearing at an earlier conference, to set aside the dismissal. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ. Commissioner Lowe dissented, agreeing with the WCJ that the calendaring error did not constitute good cause for non-appearance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ConferenceLien ClaimantNotice of Intention to DismissCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryDeli AttendantCalendaring Error
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Big Apple Supermarkets, Inc. v. Dutto

This case involves a supermarket chain (plaintiff) that initially filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, seeking an injunction and damages against labor unions (defendants). The plaintiff alleged that the unions were picketing its supermarkets, attempting to discourage customers from buying products from 'Gourmet' (producers of snack products) due to alleged substandard wages, even though the unions did not represent the plaintiff's or Gourmet's employees. The defendants subsequently removed the action to federal court, contending that the complaint implicitly alleged a violation of Section 8(b)(4) of the Labor Management Relations Act, specifically a 'secondary boycott', thereby establishing federal jurisdiction under Section 303 of the Act. The federal court examined whether the complaint described conduct falling within the prohibition of Section 8(b)(4), particularly requiring a primary dispute between an employer and a union. The court concluded that the complaint did not indicate any primary dispute, nor did the consumer product picketing described, even if a primary dispute existed, constitute a prohibited secondary boycott under established Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the defendants failed to prove federal jurisdiction, and the motion to remand the case back to the State court was granted.

Labor LawSecondary BoycottFederal JurisdictionMotion to RemandLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActNorris-LaGuardia ActConsumer PicketingUnfair Labor PracticeState Court Jurisdiction
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
Showing 1-10 of 85 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