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

Claim of Macareno v. Son Yeng Produce, Inc.

A claimant sustained injuries while working as a delivery person for Son Yeng Produce, Inc., subsequently filing a workers' compensation claim. After several hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship, awarding the claimant a 10% schedule loss of use of the left foot and confirming the employment relationship. Son Yeng Produce, Inc. sought a rehearing from the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing lack of notice for a crucial hearing and disputing the employment relationship. The Board denied this application, noting that Son Yeng had proper notification and prior opportunities to contest the employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary, capricious, or abusive discretion in the denial.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedureRehearing ApplicationNotice RequirementEmployment StatusCausal RelationshipSchedule Loss of UseJudicial DiscretionDue Process
References
2
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

Donovan v. Eastern Milk Producers Cooperative Ass'n

Plaintiff Michael H. Donovan initiated legal action against Eastern Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc., Milk Marketing, Inc., and individuals Lewis Gardner and Edwin Schoen, alleging breach of employment contract and age discrimination under both the ADEA and New York Human Rights Law. Donovan contended his termination was age-based, while defendants cited performance issues. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, identifying genuine issues of material fact regarding both the age discrimination claim and the breach of contract. Additionally, the court granted in part and denied in part Donovan's cross-motion for summary judgment on various affirmative defenses, affirming individual liability under New York Human Rights Law but dismissing it under the ADEA.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ContractSummary Judgment MotionNew York Human Rights LawADEAIndividual LiabilityBoard DecisionBreach of ContractMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPretext
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1999

Daniello v. Holy Name Church

The plaintiff, an employee of Kings Harbor Care Center, suffered injuries after slipping from an extension ladder while painting a school gym owned by Holy Name Church, for which he received workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently sued Holy Name Church under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide safety devices, and Holy Name brought a third-party action against Kings for indemnification and contribution. The trial court improperly granted summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff and the third-party plaintiff on oral applications without evidentiary support, contrary to CPLR 3212 (b). The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed the judgment, vacated it, and remanded the matter for a new trial on all issues due to the procedural error. Additionally, the court affirmed that the plaintiff was not a "volunteer" outside the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1), as he was a paid employee directed to perform the work.

Labor Law 240(1)Ladder FallWorkplace AccidentSummary JudgmentEvidentiary StandardsVolunteer StatusIndemnification ClaimContribution ClaimWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNew Trial Order
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02519 [182 AD3d 966]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Matter of Martinez v. New York Produce

Claimant Carlos Martinez, a delivery person, filed for workers' compensation benefits in April 2017 due to work-related head injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a traumatic brain injury but later denied an amendment to include bilateral knee injuries. Martinez, represented by counsel, sought Board review of the WCLJ's August 2018 decision. The Workers' Compensation Board denied this application, citing non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) as it failed to specify when an objection was interposed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in deeming the application incomplete.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawProcedural ComplianceBoard RegulationsApplication for ReviewForm RB-89Objection TimingWCLJ DecisionTraumatic Brain Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 1997

Chopra v. Display Producers, Inc.

Madhu Chopra, an assembly line worker for Display Producers, Inc., sued her employer and supervisor Wims Fyilsiame for sexual harassment and discrimination under Title VII. Chopra alleged that Fyilsiame sexually harassed her after his promotion in 1992, making her working conditions intolerable and leading to her termination in 1996. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Chopra's claims were subject to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act. The court denied the defendants' motion, holding that an arbitration clause in a CBA does not preclude an individual from litigating statutory claims under Title VII, distinguishing Gilmer from Alexander v. Gardner-Denver. The court also concluded that Title VII claims are not preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIICollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActIndividual Statutory RightsUnion Representation
References
35
Case No. SBR 0315782
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

GORDON ADAMS vs. SOUTHLAND DRYWALL COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant, Premier Outpatient Surgery Center, Inc., whose lien was denied because it allegedly did not use its full corporate name or have a fictitious business name permit. The Appeals Board rescinded the denial and returned the case for further proceedings, finding that Premier was properly licensed as an outpatient facility and that the defendant did not timely raise the fictitious business name statement issue. The Board clarified that a facility fee lien claimant is not required to have a Medical Board fictitious-name permit, but may need to file a fictitious business name statement if operating under a name other than its legal corporate name.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantFictitious Business Name StatementFictitious-Name PermitBusiness & Professions Code Section 17910Business & Professions Code Section 2415(a)Medical Board of CaliforniaOutpatient SettingFacility FeeCompromise and Release
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Display Producers, Inc. v. Shulton, Inc.

The case involves Display Producers, Inc. (DPI) suing Shulton, Inc. and Ledan, Inc. concerning the design and advertising of a point-of-sale display for 'Cie' perfume. DPI alleges that Ledan falsely claimed to have created the display, violating the Lanham Act, and that Shulton is liable for contributory infringement by enabling Ledan's false representations. Shulton moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing DPI failed to state a claim under the Lanham Act because it did not allege Shulton knew or anticipated Ledan's wrongful conduct. The court granted Shulton's motion to dismiss, ruling that merely providing the opportunity for wrongdoing is insufficient for contributory infringement liability, and denied DPI's cross-motion to amend the complaint, subsequently dismissing pendent state claims.

Lanham Actcontributory infringementfalse advertisingreverse palming-offmotion to dismissFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)Fed.R.Civ.P. 56Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)design disputeproduct display
References
17
Case No. ADJ720674 (LAO0861014) ADJ1669437 (LAO0861013)
Regular
Jan 06, 2011

NAMES TAYLOR vs. PDO RENTALS, PACIFIC COMP. CLAIM

This order from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denies a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Names Taylor. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in their report. Therefore, reconsideration of the original decision is denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDenying ReconsiderationCase NumberADJLAO District OfficeApplicantDefendantPDO Rentals
References
0
Case No. LAO 0878674
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

KARLA BUENO vs. PLAZA DEFENDANT LA RAZA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision that barred a lien claim due to the alleged lack of a fictitious business name permit. The WCAB found that while the lien claimant presented a surgical clinic license, the record was unclear about its actual business name and compliance with fictitious name filing requirements. The case is remanded for further proceedings to determine the lien claimant's true name and establish its compliance with fictitious business name laws.

Fictitious Business Name StatementSurgical Clinic LicenseHealth ServicesBusiness and Professions CodeMedical BoardLien ClaimantOutpatient SettingAdministrative Law JudgeReconsiderationReasonableness of Fees
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 643 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