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
Jul 19, 2007

Claim of Torrance v. Loretto Rest Nursing Home

Claimant, a food service worker for Loretto Rest Nursing Home, suffered a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits. While receiving partial disability benefits, she took a light duty job with another employer. Loretto subsequently terminated her employment, citing a collective bargaining agreement provision against "moonlighting" while on leave. Claimant filed a discrimination claim under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found discrimination, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed. On appeal, the Board's decision was affirmed, as Loretto's termination was deemed a non-discriminatory application of a neutral company policy.

Discrimination ClaimWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPartial DisabilityLight Duty EmploymentTermination of EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementNeutral PolicyCausal NexusAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 120
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2000

Stein v. Beaver Concrete Breaking Co.

Stuart Stein appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to Beaver Concrete Breaking Co., Inc., dismissing his personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing that a person can have both a general and special employer for Workers' Compensation Law purposes. Since Stein received workers' compensation benefits from his special employer, JAB Construction, Inc., and Beaver was determined to be his general employer, Beaver was shielded from the lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, and 29 [6].

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTort LawNew York Law
References
3
Case No. Docket No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Yates v. Hertz Corp.

Plaintiff Howard P. Yates sued his former employer, The Hertz Corporation, for wrongful termination, alleging retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy after being fired for taking a statutory break. Yates, a security guard at Nashville International Airport, was terminated immediately upon returning from a restroom break, which he attempted to take after being denied relief by management. Hertz claimed he was fired for leaving his post unattended and failing to activate security devices, a policy Yates argued was inconsistently enforced by management. The court found that Yates presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether his termination was due to exercising his statutory right to an unpaid rest break under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-2-103(d). Therefore, the court denied Hertz's motion for summary judgment.

retaliatory dischargewrongful terminationemployment-at-willstatutory rightsrest breakspublic policy exceptionsummary judgmentTennessee lawemployer liabilityinconsistent policy enforcement
References
48
Case No. 2016-04-0025
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2016

Sikora, Kirk v. Cassens Transport, Co.

Kirk Sikora, a truck driver for Cassens Transport, Co., sought reimbursement for emergency room treatment following an assault. The incident occurred during a mandatory rest break at a hotel paid for by his employer. Mr. Sikora confronted noisy partygoers, identifying himself as a truck driver needing sleep for work, which led to a physical altercation. The Workers' Compensation Judge, Robert Durham, found that the injuries arose primarily out of and in the course of his employment. The decision highlights the causal connection between the employment-mandated rest and the assault, ordering Cassens Transport, Co. to cover the medical expenses incurred at Stonecrest Medical Center, as the treatment was authorized by the employer's dispatcher.

Workers' CompensationAssaultTruck DriverMandatory Rest BreakCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentMedical BenefitsEmergency Room TreatmentHotel IncidentCausation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Boone v. Rigaud

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found the claimant filed a timely claim for benefits. The claimant, a barmaid for Rest Seekers Inn, injured her back in 1982 but initially did not file for benefits, believing she was not entitled unless she lost time from work. After losing time in 1984, she submitted a C-2 form, and her chiropractor filed a C-4 report containing details that could be inferred as a claim for compensation. The employer invoked Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, but the Board ruled in the claimant's favor. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that while the C-2 form was insufficient, the C-4 report, providing notice of injury and facts from which a claim for compensation could be reasonably inferred, satisfied the requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Workers' CompensationTimeliness of ClaimC-2 FormC-4 ReportNotice of InjuryClaim FilingStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewBack InjuryBarmaid
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2010

Ball v. Astrue

Plaintiff Lucinda M. Ball sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision denying her Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio recommended denying the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanding the case for a rehearing. District Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this recommendation, finding that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to adequately explain why the Vocational Expert's testimony regarding unscheduled rest breaks, which would eliminate job opportunities, was not followed. The case was thus remanded for a rehearing, with instructions for the ALJ to properly consider all of Plaintiff's impairments and articulate the reasons for accepting or rejecting the vocational expert's determinations.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeDepressive DisorderAsthmaResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law JudgeVocational ExpertRemandJudgment on the PleadingsSubstantial Evidence
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaye v. Orange Regional Medical Center

Plaintiff Gerald Kaye, individually and on behalf of a purported class, sued his employer, Orange Regional Medical Center, alleging that he and other respiratory therapists were not compensated for work performed during rest periods and meal breaks, leading to unpaid wages and overtime, in violation of New York Labor Law. Defendant moved to dismiss the claims, arguing they were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) due to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The court denied Defendant's motion, ruling that Plaintiff's state law claims were independent of the CBA and did not require its substantial interpretation, therefore not preempted by the LMRA. The court also found that Plaintiff was not required to exhaust the CBA's grievance and arbitration procedures.

Wage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMeal Break ViolationsRest Period ViolationsLMRA PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementNew York Labor LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Motion to DismissClass Action
References
43
Case No. 14-05-00137-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2005

in Re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Sam's Club, & Sam's East, Inc.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Sam=s Club, and Sam=s East, Inc. (collectively, Wal-Mart) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its order setting a joint trial for Elena Lopez, Margie Daniels, and LaFrance Jones. These plaintiffs had sued Wal-Mart for alleged failures to pay for missed rest/meal breaks and off-the-clock work. Wal-Mart argued that a joint trial for three plaintiffs would cause jury confusion and prejudice, making an appeal an inadequate remedy. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition, concluding that Wal-Mart possessed an adequate remedy by appeal, as the circumstances of the joint trial were not extraordinary enough to warrant mandamus relief.

MandamusJoint TrialClass ActionAppellate RemedyAbuse of DiscretionConsolidation OrderTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureFair Labor Standards ActUnpaid WagesRest Breaks
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1980

In re the Claim of Cruz

The claimant, an assistant engineer at a nursing home, was discharged for leaving the premises for a meal break in violation of employer policy, despite a prior warning. The employer required the claimant to remain on-site during breaks as he worked alone on a night shift and needed to be available for emergencies. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially found the employer's rule invalid based on its interpretation of Labor Law § 162 (subd 4), determining the claimant's actions did not constitute disqualifying misconduct. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that Labor Law § 162 (subd 4) does not dictate the location of a meal break and that the employer's policy, especially with compensated breaks, was reasonable. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

MisconductUnemployment InsuranceMeal Break PolicyEmployer RulesStatutory InterpretationLabor LawAdministrative Law JudgeAppeal BoardNursing Home EmployeeTermination
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of University Park v. University Park Police Ass'n

The case addresses whether the City of University Park is required to compensate its police officers for meal breaks during which they remain on call. Police department employees sued the City for overtime pay, contending that their entire eight-hour shift, including a forty-minute meal break, should be compensable, thereby making their pre-shift "detail" time eligible for overtime. The City countered that meal breaks were not compensable, negating any overtime claim. Applying a two-prong test from Blum v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp., the court assessed whether the time primarily benefited the employee or employer and if it allowed for personal use. The court determined that the meal breaks predominantly benefited the officers and that any interruptions were de minimus. Consequently, the judgment in favor of the police officers was reversed.

Fair Labor Standards ActMeal Break CompensationOn-Call DutyOvertime PayPolice EmploymentPublic Sector Labor LawTexas Civil StatutesWork HoursEmployee BenefitsEmployer Responsibilities
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 330 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