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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08907 [156 AD3d 1132]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

Claim of Kraus v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

Claimant, Gerard J. Kraus, a workers' compensation claims adjustor for Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., was terminated due to inconsistent application of a no-fault policy, which led to him receiving threats from unionized employee drivers. He subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits, alleging a psychiatric occupational disease, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, panic disorder, and insomnia, stemming from work-related stress and threats. The Workers' Compensation Board found that claimant sustained a causally-related accidental psychiatric injury and rejected the employer's contention that claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Board also denied the employer's application for reconsideration, full Board review, and a rehearing, deeming some filings untimely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board's determination of a compensable work-related psychiatric injury was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board properly exercised its discretion in its procedural rulings.

Psychiatric InjuryPTSDWorkplace StressCausationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEmployer PolicyEmployee TerminationAdministrative ProcedureAppellate DivisionSufficiency of Evidence
References
18
Case No. 87
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2023

The Matter of the Claim of Thomas Lazalee v. Wegman's Food Markets

Claimant Thomas Lazalee filed for workers' compensation benefits for a right thumb injury and carpal tunnel syndrome in 2018, and later for left-hand injuries in 2019. The employer, Wegman's Food Markets, Inc., paid temporary total disability benefits. At an April 2020 hearing, the employer accepted liability but requested to cross-examine the claimant's physician regarding the degree of impairment. The WCLJ denied the request, a decision affirmed by the Board and Appellate Division, which deemed the request untimely. The New York State Court of Appeals reversed, holding that 12 NYCRR 300.10 (c) mandates that a referee 'shall grant an adjournment' for cross-examination of an attending physician if requested at a hearing before a decision on the merits, affording no discretion to deny such a request. The court noted that if the Board desires discretion, it must amend its rules. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationNew York Court of AppealsCross-examinationPhysician ReportAdjournmentProcedural Due ProcessStatutory InterpretationRule 300.10(c)Employer RightsDisability Benefits
References
18
Case No. ADJ8332892, ADJ8584295
Regular
Oct 10, 2014

DEANNA SATTERWHITE vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by Whole Foods Market, as it was withdrawn by the petitioner. This dismissal is based solely on the petitioner's withdrawal of their appeal. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) retains the authority to proceed with a recommendation for sanctions at the trial level. Consequently, the WCAB officially orders the dismissal of the petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedSanction RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardTrial LevelWCJWithdrawn PetitionGallagher Bassett ServicesWhole Foods MarketDeanna Satterwhite
References
0
Case No. ADJ10775296
Regular
Nov 30, 2018

SMM SICAIROS vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Whole Foods Market seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the judge's award of additional temporary disability indemnity. The defendant's claim that the award was procured by fraud based on surveillance video was rejected because the defendant failed to disclose the video before the hearing, violating procedural rules regarding newly discovered evidence. Therefore, the defendant's petition was denied for failing to meet the requirements for submitting new evidence.

Sub rosaPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityMedical Provider NetworkQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 5903(d)Appeals Board Rule 10856Newly discovered evidenceFraud
References
0
Case No. ADJ8011399, ADJ8967612, ADJ8967613
Regular
Jan 21, 2014

ENRIQUE DOMINGUEZ vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Whole Foods Market, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of a decision filed on October 30, 2013. This action was taken to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues presented in the case. The Board requires more time to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to render a just decision. All future communications regarding these cases must now be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardGallagher Bassett Servicesstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemADJ8011399ADJ8967612
References
0
Case No. ADJ6616915, ADJ7949365
Regular
May 29, 2012

MOHAMMAD TAHVILDAR RAZAVI vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Mohammad Tahvildar Razavi's appeal regarding delays in workers' compensation benefits from Whole Foods Market, Inc. The Appeals Board denied Razavi's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision. The Board found that while there was a delay in paying interest on an attorney fee check, the applicant failed to prove any unreasonable delay in the payment of permanent disability benefits. The Board reiterated that the applicant's contentions were not adequately supported by evidence or specific citations.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENYGRANTFINDINGS OF FACTAWARDOPINION AND ORDERADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEPERMANENT DISABILITYTEMPORARY DISABILITY
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bakery Confectionery Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union, Local 116 v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

This case involved a dispute between the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, Local 116, and Wegmans Food Markets concerning the arbitrability of an employee's termination. Employee Derrick McCullough was dismissed for alleged theft, and the Union sought to compel arbitration, contending the collective bargaining agreement's theft exclusion was ambiguous or misapplied. The District Court granted summary judgment for Wegmans, denying the Union's cross-motion, concluding that the exclusionary clause was unambiguous. The court found Wegmans' characterization of McCullough's conduct as theft was valid based on the evidence presented at the time of termination, thereby rendering the grievance non-arbitrable.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActTheft Exclusion ClauseEmployee TerminationGrievance ProcedureContract InterpretationFederal District CourtUnion Rights
References
7
Case No. GRADE
Regular
Dec 09, 2009

KIM VUKCEVICH vs. SAFEWAY, INC., WHOLE FOODS MARKETS, ACE INSURANCE

The Appeals Board reverses the WCJ’s decision that Whole Foods must reimburse Safeway for benefits paid to the applicant. The Board finds that Safeway failed to prove a second cumulative trauma injury by substantial medical evidence.

Cumulative traumaIndustrial injuryLeft shoulderSafewayWhole FoodsACE InsuranceReimbursementMedical evidenceBurden of proofQualified Medical Examiner
References
2
Case No. 532932
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Matter of Lazalee v. Wegman's Food Mkts., Inc.

Claimant Thomas Lazalee, a truck driver, established claims for work-related occupational diseases in both hands, undergoing multiple surgeries. The employer, Wegman's Food Markets, Inc., initially paid temporary total disability benefits but later sought to cross-examine treating physician Raymond Stefanich regarding the degree of disability following a 2019 surgery. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied the employer's request as untimely, noting the employer had accepted liability and paid benefits for months without challenging the disability status. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to disturb the finding that the request for cross-examination was untimely, thereby waiving the employer's right.

Workers' Compensation Board DecisionOccupational Disease ClaimCarpal Tunnel SyndromeTrigger ThumbTemporary Total Disability BenefitsEmployer's Right to Cross-ExamineTimeliness of RequestMedical ReportsWaiver of RightsAppellate Review of Board Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colonial Super Markets, Inc. v. Liss

Plaintiffs (Colonial Super Markets, Hy-Co Supermarkets, Marcaro, Inc.), three separate retail food stores affiliated as "Bells," sued defendant labor unions (Teamsters Local 558 and Food Store Employees 34) and their officers for a permanent injunction against picketing and for money damages. The plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief pendente lite. The unions began picketing plaintiffs' stores, claiming employees were non-union. Subsequently, Retail Clerks Local No. 212 organized plaintiffs' employees, and plaintiffs signed a recognition agreement with Local No. 212. Despite this, Teamsters Local No. 558 continued picketing, and Local No. 34 later rejoined. Plaintiffs argued the picketing's unlawful objective was to coerce them into recognizing the defendant unions and breach their contract with Local No. 212, constituting interference with contractual relations. Defendants asserted lawful organizational picketing and that the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The court concluded that the picketing's real purpose was unlawful coercion and to induce contract breach, thus not constituting a "labor dispute" under Civil Practice Act section 876-a. The court also found its jurisdiction not preempted by federal statutes since the activities were not unfair labor practices under federal law. Consequently, the court denied defendants' motions and granted plaintiffs' motions for injunctive relief, with a termination proviso on November 1, 1957.

InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeUnlawful Labor ObjectiveCollective BargainingRecognition AgreementJurisdictional DisputeContractual InterferenceState Court JurisdictionPreemption Doctrine
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,133 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