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

Lay v. Scott County Sheriff's Department

Jerry Brandon Lay, a deputy sheriff for Scott County Sheriff's Department, was injured in an automobile accident in October 2000, sustaining neck, shoulder, arm, and back injuries. He underwent surgery for a bulging disc and was rated with a 13% whole body disability, reaching maximum medical improvement in January 2002. After initially returning to the Sheriff's Department at the same pay, Lay voluntarily resigned for a higher-paying job, only to be rehired by the Sheriff's Department at a lower wage after his surgery. The trial court awarded Lay 60% permanent partial disability, believing the 2.5 times impairment rating statutory cap did not apply as he was not returned to the same position at the same wage. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, asserting that the 2.5 times cap applies when an employee has a meaningful return to work and resigns for reasons unrelated to the injury, regardless of later returning at a lower wage. Consequently, Lay's award was modified to 32.5% permanent partial disability, which is 2.5 times his 13% impairment rating.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMeaningful Return to WorkStatutory CapsVoluntary ResignationWage DiscrepancySpinal InjuryMedical Impairment RatingAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hudacs v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that Frito-Lay, Inc. did not violate Labor Law § 193 by requiring its route salespeople to reimburse the company for unremitted funds collected from customers. The court determined that these repayments were distinct from wage deductions, which are prohibited by the statute, and instead represented the full remittance of company funds temporarily entrusted to employees. The case originated from an order by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 193, which was subsequently revoked by the Industrial Board of Appeals. While the Supreme Court initially reinstated the Commissioner's order, the Appellate Division reversed, finding the Board's interpretation rational. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Labor Law § 193, specifically whether requiring employees to make up account deficits constituted an unauthorized deduction from wages or a separate transaction for the repayment of company funds. The Court emphasized that Frito-Lay allowed setoffs for deficits not attributable to the failure to fully remit funds, such as damaged products or theft, aligning with the statutory purpose of placing certain risks on the employer. Ultimately, the Court concluded that under the unique factual circumstances where employees convert company funds to their own accounts before remitting, the requirement to make up deficits did not contravene Labor Law § 193, as the funds were never wages.

Wage DeductionLabor Law § 193Employer Reimbursement PolicyRoute SalespeopleUnremitted FundsIndustrial Board of AppealsCollective BargainingNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Statutory InterpretationEmployee Accountability
References
10
Case No. 2022-05-0709A, 2022-05-0709B
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

Allen, Marilyn v. Frito Lay, INC.

Frito Lay, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment on Marilyn Allen's claim for an alleged right-knee injury at work, contending that Ms. Allen failed to file her suit within one year of the dates of injury, as no benefits were paid. Ms. Allen argued that her refiled petition, after a nonsuit of a previous petition with incorrect dates, fell within the ninety-day savings period provided by the nonsuit statute, allowing her to proceed with the claim. The Court granted Frito-Lay’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling that Ms. Allen's petitions, which alleged new dates of injury, constituted new causes of action. Consequently, these new causes of action were filed more than a year after the alleged dates of injury, placing them outside the applicable statute of limitations, and her claim was dismissed with prejudice.

summary judgmentstatute of limitationsnonsuit ruleworkers' compensationright-knee injuryrefiled claimnew cause of actiontimely filingdismissed with prejudiceTennessee law
References
2
Case No. 04-08-00630-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2009

Kirk Cantu v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

Kirk Cantu, a Frito-Lay route sales representative, was terminated after being accused of tampering with product sell-by dates and subsequently barred from all HEB stores. Cantu sued his former employer, alleging age and gender discrimination, claiming he was replaced by a younger employee and treated differently than a similarly situated female employee, Sandra Casso, who was also barred from an HEB store but not terminated. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Frito-Lay. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Cantu and Casso were not "similarly situated" because their conduct was not "nearly identical" or of "comparable seriousness" for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case of employment discrimination.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActSimilarly SituatedDisparate DisciplineRoute Sales RepresentativeMisconductTrial Court Affirmation
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Luna v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

Gregory Luna appealed a summary judgment in favor of Frito-Lay, Inc. in a wrongful discharge lawsuit. Luna claimed a four-year statute of limitations applied under former articles 5527 or 5529, or if a two-year period applied under former article 5526, a fact issue existed regarding the discharge date. The court determined that the two-year statute of limitations in article 5526 was applicable as the cause of action for wrongful discharge under article 8307c more closely resembled a tort. The court also found no fact issue regarding the discharge date, concluding Luna was informed of his replacement on May 31, 1983, which constituted his discharge. Therefore, his lawsuit filed on June 3, 1985, was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Summary judgmentWrongful dischargeStatute of limitationsWorkers' compensationEmployment lawTexas lawTort actionAccrual of cause of actionAppellate reviewFrito-Lay
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04217
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Mayers v. Frito Lay

Cynthia Mayers, a warehouse worker, sustained a work-related back injury in September 2002 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. Her employer, Frito Lay, and its workers' compensation carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, filing a C-250 form. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately rejected the reimbursement claim, citing an inadequately completed C-250 form and the non-binding nature of a pretrial conference sheet due to lack of Board approval. The carrier appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing strict adherence to prescribed forms for reimbursement claims and confirming that the pretrial conference sheet was not preclusive without Board approval.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundC-250 FormReimbursement ClaimPretrial ConferenceBoard ApprovalAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedureClaimant RightsEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frito-Lay Inc. v. Ramos

This appeal concerns a judgment awarding damages to Salvador Ramos against Frito-Lay, Inc., for an alleged assault and battery committed by Frito-Lay employee Jose Padilla. The incident occurred when Padilla, a district sales manager acting as a route salesman, attempted to reclaim a Frito-Lay merchandise rack from Ramos, who claimed it as a gift. The jury found Padilla committed assault and battery while acting within the scope of his employment. On appeal, the court affirmed the finding that Padilla was acting within the course and scope of his employment, holding that his attempt to reclaim company property was within his duties. However, the court reversed the award of exemplary damages, concluding that Padilla was not acting in a managerial capacity as a route salesman. Additionally, the court denied recovery for medical bills due to insufficient evidence linking them to the specific incident in question. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.

Assault and BatteryVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentExemplary DamagesMedical BillsSufficiency of EvidenceManagerial CapacityRoute SalesmanFrito-Lay EmployeeAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. 2015-05-0340
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2016

Welch, Mark v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

Mark Welch, a truck driver for Frito-Lay, sustained a right shoulder injury on April 28, 2015, while unloading boxes. Frito-Lay initially provided a medical panel, from which Mr. Welch selected Dr. Derek Riley, but subsequently denied coverage for his rotator cuff and biceps tendon injuries, arguing pre-existing pathology. Dr. Riley was unable to provide a definitive causation opinion using the correct legal standard. Mr. Welch then consulted Dr. William Ledbetter, who concluded with a "greater than 50% likelihood" that the injuries were work-related. The Court found Dr. Ledbetter’s opinion persuasive and legally sufficient, granting Mr. Welch's request for medical benefits and ordering Frito-Lay to cover treatment, including surgical repair recommended by Dr. Riley, who remains the authorized treating physician.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsCausation OpinionRotator Cuff TearBiceps Tendon RuptureShoulder InjuryTruck DriverWork-Related InjuryMedical Certainty Standard
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

The plaintiff, a handicapped individual, filed a complaint against Frito-Lay alleging causes of action under Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the court treated as a motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that a private cause of action for handicapped employees could not be implied under Section 503, referencing the Cort v. Ash test and legislative intent. Regarding Section 504, the court found no evidence that Frito-Lay received federal financial assistance, which is a prerequisite for a claim under that section. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action with prejudice due to the absence of substantive federal jurisdiction.

Rehabilitation ActPrivate Right of ActionFederal JurisdictionSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationHandicapped IndividualsAffirmative ActionLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationFederal Contracts
References
32
Case No. 525713
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2018

Matter of Ferrari v. Frito Lay

Claimant Joseph Ferrari sustained a back injury in 2007 while working for Frito Lay, receiving workers' compensation benefits. A subsequent back injury in 2008 while employed by Canada Dry Bottling Company of New York led to a classification of permanent total disability in 2014. The Workers' Compensation Board reopened the case files to consider apportionment, ultimately precluding the opinion of orthopedist Salvatore Corso due to a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 137 (1) and his failure to appear for a scheduled deposition. Relying on other medical evidence, the Board apportioned Ferrari's permanent total disability equally between the 2007 and 2008 injuries. Frito Lay appealed this decision, but the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence regarding both the preclusion of Corso's reports and the apportionment itself.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentIndependent Medical ExaminationIME PreclusionBack InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityPrior Compensable InjuryMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 151 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