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. ADJ8742173
Regular
Oct 01, 2018

JOSE MARDOQUEO PEREZ vs. FRIENDLY FRANCHISEES CORPORATION, dba CARL'S JR, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant Friendly Franchisees Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order. The defendant sought to stay a lien by Reshealth Medical Group under Labor Code section 4615, arguing Reshealth was controlled by Eric Schames, a criminally charged provider. However, the Board found the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof to establish Schames was an officer or director of Reshealth Medical Group, as opposed to Reshealth Diagnostics. Therefore, the lien was not subject to the section 4615 stay.

Labor Code section 4615Labor Code section 139.21Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderlien stayAdministrative DirectorFranchise Tax Boardcorporate suspensionEric Schames
References
3
Case No. ADJ9653107
Regular
Jun 04, 2015

FERNANDO ALVARADO vs. FRIENDLY FRANCHISEES CORPORATION dba DFG RESTAURANTS, UNITED STATES F FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, CRUM & FORSTER

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant, Friendly Franchisees Corporation. The defendant sought to remove an order that continued a workers' compensation hearing to allow the applicant to submit exhibits. The Appeals Board denied the petition, citing that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that the judge's decision to allow the applicant to enter medical evidence, under CCP § 473, outweighed any alleged harm to the defendant and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationADJ9653107AOE/COE trialCal. Code of Civil Procedure § 473inadvertent omission
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hatcher v. Augustus

The plaintiff, Philip Hatcher, a 7-Eleven store manager, initiated an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against the franchisee, Warner Augustus, and the franchisor, Southland Corporation. Hatcher alleged wrongful termination based on his religion after being fired for refusing to work on Sunday mornings. Southland Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not Hatcher's employer within the context of Title VII. The court applied a 'hybrid test,' which combines economic realities and common law agency tests, to determine employer status. Despite Southland providing payroll services to the franchisee, the court found that Augustus had exclusive control over Hatcher's employment. The court concluded that Southland was not Hatcher's 'employer' under Title VII and granted Southland's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it.

Title VIIReligious DiscriminationFranchisor LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementHybrid TestControl TestEconomic Realities TestEmployment Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dipilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

Angela DiPilato, a 43-year-old single female, applied to become a 7-Eleven franchisee and was denied. She alleged discrimination based on age, gender, and marital status, filing claims under federal and New York State laws against 7-Eleven and its employees Lynch, Hagler, and Rubinett. Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis recommended granting summary judgment to defendants on most claims but denying it for claims under New York State Human Rights Law § 296(5)(b) against 7-Eleven and Lynch, and New York Civil Rights Law § 40-c against all defendants. District Judge Cathy Seibel reviewed objections and adopted the R&R, concluding that summary judgment is granted to defendants on most claims, denied for the two specified NY state law claims, and affirmed the order denying leave to amend the complaint. The court found that franchisees are independent contractors, thus federal employment discrimination claims (Title VII, ADEA) were dismissed, as were conspiracy claims and most state constitutional claims.

DiscriminationFranchise LawSummary JudgmentMagistrate Report and RecommendationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationMarital Status DiscriminationNew York Human Rights LawNew York Civil Rights LawIndependent Contractor
References
74
Case No. ADJ9085589
Regular
Jun 12, 2015

CLAUDIA MARTINEZ vs. FRIENDLY FRANCHISEES CORP. dba CARL'S JR, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a dismissal order, finding the applicant's case should not have been dismissed due to her absence from trial. The WCAB clarified that while an applicant's testimony may be necessary, their mere failure to appear when represented by counsel does not automatically permit dismissal. Instead, the defendant must follow proper procedures to compel the applicant's attendance, or the WCJ should consider sanctions or an adverse inference. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCAB Rule 10562Petition for ReconsiderationSet Aside DismissalApplicant Failure to AppearCounsel PresenceWCJ ErrorNotice of Intention to DismissOrder of DismissalGood Cause to ReopenError of Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ9422751
Regular
May 02, 2017

ANGANYE CHOY vs. FRIENDLY FRANCHISEES CORPORATION DBA CARL'S JR, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by CRUM AND FORSTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, finding the panel qualified medical examiner's opinion to be substantial evidence based on adequate examination and reasoning. The Board affirmed that one physician's relevant opinion can constitute substantial evidence, even if contradicted. Furthermore, no good cause was established for further discovery after the mandatory settlement conference.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportsubstantial evidencemedical opinionreasonable medical probabilityPQMEadequate examinationconsistent medical opinionsdiscoverymandatory settlement conference
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00527 [224 AD3d 1254]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2024

Kelly v. Prohaska

This personal injury action arises from a motor vehicle accident where John M. Moudy was struck by a van operated by Nicholas J. Prohaska, a franchisee, and owned/leased by Snap-on Credit LLC. The Supreme Court initially granted Snap-on Credit's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion regarding the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106). The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, finding that Snap-on Credit failed to establish it was

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentGraves AmendmentVicarious LiabilityLeased VehiclesFranchisee LiabilityAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefenseStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1992

Claim of Le Fevre v. Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Worker's Compensation Board decision finding an employer-employee relationship between a claimant and Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc. The claimant, a franchisee of Tel-A-Car's two-way radio dispatch transportation service, was required to operate a specific luxury car, lease a radio, charge Tel-A-Car's set fares, and abide by strict operational rules and a dress code. Despite some freedom in work hours, the Board based its determination of an employer-employee relationship on Tel-A-Car's significant control over car type, radio leasing, fare setting, and dispatching. The appellate court found these incidents of control sufficient to support the Board's determination. Furthermore, the court affirmed the decision and declined to consider a new argument regarding the State Franchise Act, as it was not raised before the Board.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation LawFranchise agreementControl testAppellate procedureFactual issueScope of employmentTransportation industryNew York lawGeneral Business Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cedar Brook Service Station, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

Plaintiffs, eleven New York service station dealers, brought an action against Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Cumberland Farms Inc., challenging Chevron's sale of motor fuel properties to Cumberland. Plaintiffs argued the sale violated the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) by terminating or not renewing their franchises. Defendants moved for reconsideration of a prior decision that denied them summary judgment, citing recent federal court rulings. The court, upon reconsideration, found that an assignment valid under state law does not constitute a termination or failure to renew a franchise relationship under the PMPA, provided the franchisee's core rights are maintained. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that the assignment harmed their franchises or violated New York law. Consequently, the court vacated its previous order and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Petroleum Marketing Practices ActFranchise LawSummary JudgmentContract AssignmentMarket WithdrawalFederal LawNew York LawStatutory InterpretationDealer RightsReconsideration
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wax NJ-2, LLC v. JFB Construction & Development

Plaintiff Wax NJ-2, LLC, a European Wax Center franchisee, sued architectural firm GF 55 Partners (GF55) and contractor JFB Construction & Development (JFB) for architectural malpractice related to the construction of its Forest Hills, Queens, New York store. JFB defaulted, leading to a bench trial against GF55. Wax alleged GF55 failed to accurately measure the space for lease negotiations and negligently inspected the construction. The Court found GF55 not liable for the measurement claims due to lack of a professional duty for lease negotiations and adherence to the standard of care. However, GF55 was found liable for failing to properly inspect for black iron, fireproofing, and firestopping as required by the TR1 form, which proximately caused Wax's damages. The Court awarded Wax $54,247 against GF55 and entered a default judgment of $163,723 against JFB.

Architectural MalpracticeProfessional NegligenceConstruction DefectsBuilding Code ViolationsInspection DutyBlack Iron InstallationFirestopping FailureFireproofing OmissionDemising Wall DisputeSquare Footage Measurement
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 14 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