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

Valdez v. City of New York

Carmen Valdez sued the City of New York after her estranged boyfriend shot her, claiming the City failed to provide adequate police protection. Valdez alleged a "special relationship" was formed when Officer Torres promised to "immediately" arrest her boyfriend after a threat, leading her to return home. The jury initially found the City negligent, but the Appellate Division reversed, concluding no special relationship was established due to a lack of justifiable reliance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that Valdez's reliance on the officer's promise to arrest her boyfriend "immediately" was not justifiable, especially given the elapsed time and her expectation of a confirmation call. The Court emphasized that a special relationship requires justifiable reliance, which was not met as there were no extraneous factors beyond the promise contributing to her sense of security, and the police did not know the boyfriend's location for an immediate arrest.

Police ProtectionSpecial RelationshipGovernmental ImmunityJustifiable RelianceNegligenceDomestic ViolenceDuty of CareMinisterial ActDiscretionary ActPublic Duty Rule
References
12
Case No. ADJ4021533
Regular
Oct 27, 2017

ANNETTE VALDEZ vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Annette Valdez's petition for reconsideration because she was not aggrieved by any final or non-final order. The petition was also deemed skeletal, failing to state grounds for reconsideration or cite specific record evidence. The only substantive order in the case was a Stipulated Award from 2001. Consequently, the Board found no basis to grant reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationAggrieved PartySkeletal PetitionFinal OrderStipulated AwardLabor Code 5710Appeals Board RulesSubstantive RightThreshold IssueMaterial Evidence
References
11
Case No. CV-23-0221
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Annette Bosque

Annette Bosque, a home health care aide, sustained severe injuries, including a subarachnoid hemorrhage and spinal cord injuries, after falling in a patient's home. She filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which the employer, Prime Support Inc., and its carrier controverted. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the injuries to be work-related and awarded benefits. The carrier appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, which affirmed the WCLJ's decision. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, the carrier's arguments were rejected. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and relying on the statutory presumption of compensability for unwitnessed or unexplained accidents occurring during the course of employment.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Law § 21(1)Presumption of CompensabilityUnwitnessed AccidentEmployer's DefensesPrehearing Conference StatementSubstantial Evidence Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

Valdez v. Colvin

Plaintiff Carmen Valdez initiated this action to seek judicial review of the final decision rendered by the Commissioner of Social Security, which determined that Valdez was not disabled and therefore ineligible for Social Security benefits. Valdez's initial applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, filed on June 14, 2012, were denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on May 28, 2014, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Appeals Council. The ALJ acknowledged several severe impairments but ultimately concluded that Valdez did not meet the criteria for a regulatory disability, possessing the residual functional capacity to perform light, unskilled work. In reviewing the case, the court upheld the ALJ's findings, concluding they were supported by substantial evidence and based on correct legal standards. The court affirmed the ALJ's thorough consideration of treating physician opinions, the appropriate discounting of subjective pain complaints lacking objective medical support, and the valid reliance on vocational expert testimony.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)Treating Physician RuleCredibility DeterminationVocational Expert (VE) TestimonySubstantial Evidence ReviewChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)Gastrointestinal Reflux Disease (GERD)
References
39
Case No. ADJ7620069
Regular
Apr 25, 2014

ALBERTO RUVALCABA vs. JOSE VALDEZ, C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, a truck driver, sustained injuries on July 25, 2010. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration filed by defendant Jose Valdez. The WCJ found that the applicant was an employee of Valdez DBA Chopper, not CH Robinson Worldwide, Inc., based on the evidence presented. The Board adopted the WCJ's findings and gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility assessment, which found Valdez's testimony to be less credible. Therefore, the decision finding Valdez as the employer and illegally uninsured stands.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIllegally UninsuredPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeCredibilityIndependent ContractorTransportation BrokerageDual EmployerSpecial EmployerEmployment Relationship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1998

Lopez v. Tarana

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in three related actions concerning wrongful death and personal injuries stemming from a car accident. An intoxicated employee, Cynthia Tarana, after drinking at an unofficial work event, caused an accident resulting in one death and two injuries. The Supreme Court initially found Tarana negligent and her employer, C & H Pizza Corp., and supervisor, Denise LaBarbera, liable under the 'social host' statute, awarding damages to the plaintiffs Annette Lopez, Kara Kissane, and Catherine Rubino. The appellate court reversed the judgment, citing errors in determining the supervisor's scope of employment, the omission of fault apportionment for the employer and driver, and the award of damages to Annette Lopez without proof of economic loss. Consequently, the complaint seeking damages for Annette Lopez personally was dismissed, and a new trial was granted for the remaining causes of action.

Wrongful deathPersonal injuryVehicular manslaughterIntoxicated drivingSocial host liabilityScope of employmentJury verdictDamagesAppellate reviewReversal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 1970

Claim of Melillo v. La Sala Contracting Co.

The decedent, while engaged in strenuous work, complained of chest pain, collapsed, and died shortly after. His widow, Jean Melillo, filed a claim for death benefits, which was controverted by Annette Melillo, who also asserted to be the legal widow. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found that the decedent’s strenuous work activity, combined with continuing to work despite chest pains, constituted an accidental injury leading to his death. The Board also determined Jean Melillo to be the lawful widow entitled to benefits. Annette Melillo appealed this decision, but her appeal was considered abandoned due to failure to file a brief. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s findings, citing substantial medical evidence supporting the causal relationship between the decedent's continued work after the onset of symptoms and his death.

Worker's CompensationAccidental InjuryCausal RelationshipDeath BenefitsWidow DisputeStrenuous WorkMedical EvidenceAppeal AbandonedBoard FindingsChest Pain
References
3
Case No. ADJ7785936
Regular
Sep 28, 2012

LISA VALDEZ vs. AH CLEARLAKE HOSPITAL, INC. dba ST.\nHELENA HOSPITAL CLEARLAKE, administered by, ADVENTIST HEALTH

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Lisa Valdez related to a prior decision dated August 22, 2012. The petitioner, Valdez, has since withdrawn their petition. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has formally dismissed the petition for reconsideration. This dismissal is effective as of September 28, 2012.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantADJ7785936Santa Rosa District OfficeAugust 22 2012September 28 2012
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04942 [197 AD3d 1382]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Matter of Valdez v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

The claimant, a flight attendant, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2019 after experiencing skin, respiratory, and other physical problems believed to be linked to her new work uniform. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim for contact dermatitis, reactive airway disease, and lymphadenopathy. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, modifying it to establish the claim for an occupational disease with a date of disablement of May 1, 2019, under its continuing jurisdiction. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed, arguing a lack of causal link, especially since the chemical claimant was allergic to was not found in the uniform. However, the Board credited the claimant's testimony and her occupational physician's opinion that, based on the timing of symptoms, chemical sensitivity, and similar reactions among coworkers, there was a causal link. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationContact DermatitisReactive Airway DiseaseLymphadenopathyFlight AttendantWork UniformCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prompt Nursing Employment Agency LLC v. Valdez

This case involves a lawsuit filed by Prompt Nursing Employment Agency LLC against Jericson B. Valdez, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference with business opportunities. The Defendant filed motions seeking a change of venue from the Central Islip Courthouse to Brooklyn and to amend her answer to include a counterclaim for breach of contract. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, presided over by Judge Arthur D. Spatt, denied the Defendant's motion for a change of venue, deferring to the Plaintiff's choice of forum and finding sufficient connection to the current venue. However, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to amend her answer, concluding that there was no evidence of bad faith, undue prejudice to the Plaintiff, or futility in the proposed breach of contract counterclaim. This decision allows the Defendant to add her counterclaim and modifies other aspects of her answer.

Federal ProcedureVenue TransferContract DisputeTortious InterferenceMotion to AmendPleadingCounterclaimEastern District of New YorkDiscretionary ReviewCivil Litigation
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 52 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