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. ADJ2419784 (LBO 0367096) ADJ2075423 (LBO 0367097) ADJ2337471 (LBO 0367098)
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

ANTHONY DE FAZIO vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS

Applicant Anthony De Fazio petitioned for reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award and Order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted this petition, finding it necessary to further study the factual and legal issues. This reconsideration is intended to allow for a complete understanding of the record and a just decision. Further proceedings may be determined as appropriate.

Anthony De FazioLos Angeles Unified School DistrictSedgwick CMSPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardStatutory time constraintsFactual issuesLegal issuesDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ2419784 (LBO 0367096)
Regular
Oct 02, 2012

ANTHONY DE FAZIO vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review the apportionment of permanent disability awards for applicant Anthony De Fazio. Applicant sustained three separate industrial injuries in 2002, 2003, and 2004, resulting in distinct permanent disability ratings. Applicant argued that all permanent disability should be awarded as a single lump sum due to intertwined work restrictions, citing *Benson v. Permanente Medical Group*. The WCAB rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the trial level. This was done to allow for new rating instructions that would apply the "common restriction" to each injury, with a specific instruction for the workers' compensation judge to consider any overlap in disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAnthony De FazioLos Angeles Unified School DistrictSedgwick CMSReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentBenson v. Permanente Medical GroupIndustrial Injuries
References
6
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03392
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2024

Matter of State of New York v. Anthony R.

This case concerns the appeal of an order civilly committing Anthony R. as a dangerous sex offender under Mental Hygiene Law article 10. Anthony R. had a history of sex offenses and prior confinement, followed by release under strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST). After a period of compliance, he violated SIST conditions due to changes in his medication and treatment. The Supreme Court ordered his recommitment based on these violations, including substance abuse and aggressive non-sexual behavior. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that the State failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Anthony R. is *presently unable* to control his sexual conduct. The court found no persuasive link between his non-sexual SIST violations and an inability to control sexual behavior. The case was remanded for a new commitment order, clarifying that Anthony R. requires continued strict and intensive supervision, but not confinement.

Mental Hygiene LawSex OffenderCivil CommitmentSISTMental AbnormalityDangerousness AssessmentControl BehaviorAppellate DivisionReversalRemand
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Concha v. Fordham University

Plaintiff Harry de la Concha sued his former employer, Fordham University, alleging discrimination based on race (Latino) and national origin (Puerto Rican) after his termination. Fordham moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the discharge. The court found no evidence to support a claim of national origin discrimination and granted summary judgment to Fordham on that claim. Regarding the race discrimination claim, the court determined that de la Concha failed to demonstrate that Fordham's stated reasons for his dismissal were a pretext for discrimination, despite an immediate supervisor's use of racial slurs. Consequently, the court granted Fordham's motion for summary judgment on the race claim, dismissing de la Concha's Title VII claim in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentPretextHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Gregorio v. CBS, Inc.

Plaintiff Carl De Gregorio sued CBS after footage of him holding hands with a co-worker on Madison Avenue was broadcast for a news segment about romance, despite his explicit request to prevent its use. De Gregorio alleged invasion of privacy under the New York Civil Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, and defamation. The court granted summary judgment to CBS, finding that the broadcast, filmed in a public place for a newsworthy topic, did not constitute an invasion of privacy or defamation. The decision emphasized that incidental use and the constitutional protection of freedom of the press precluded liability, even if the subject desired greater privacy.

Invasion of PrivacyCivil Rights LawFreedom of the PressSummary JudgmentDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortNewsworthinessIncidental UsePublic Street
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Los Santos v. City of New York

Plaintiff Alsacia De Los Santos sued the City of New York, NYPD, and Lt. Christopher Pasquerelli, alleging retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state/municipal human rights laws. De Los Santos claimed Lt. Pasquerelli retaliated against her for reporting a sexual encounter between two police officers, Lt. Kevin Leddy and Officer Tara Eckert. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to state a First Amendment claim, could not show municipal liability, and failed to state a claim under human rights laws. The Court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's conversations about the sexual encounter did not constitute speech on a matter of public concern for First Amendment purposes. Additionally, the court found she could not reasonably believe she was reporting sexual harassment under human rights laws.

RetaliationFirst AmendmentPublic ConcernSummary JudgmentSexual HarassmentNYPDPolice MisconductEmployment DiscriminationMunicipal LiabilityQualified Immunity
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Figueiredo Ferraz Consultoria E Engenharia De Projeto Ltda. v. Republic of Peru

Figueiredo Ferraz Consultoria E Engenharia de Projeto Ltda. (Plaintiff) had petitioned to confirm a $21 million arbitration award against the Republic of Peru, Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento, and Programa Agua Para Todos (Defendants). The Court dismissed the action due to forum non conveniens following a mandate from the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, Defendants moved for attorneys' fees and costs amounting to over $1.1 million. The Court denied this motion, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs the availability of attorneys' fees, and neither the FAA nor the parties' original agreement provides for such an award. The Court also rejected arguments regarding the applicability of Peruvian law and any alleged concession by the Plaintiff on fees.

Arbitration AwardForum Non ConveniensAttorneys' FeesFederal Arbitration ActInternational ArbitrationJudicial DiscretionContractual DisputeCivil ProcedureSecond CircuitMotion to Dismiss
References
14
Case No. No. 27
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2023

The People v. Anthony Debellis

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Anthony Debellis for criminal possession of a weapon, ordering a new trial. The Court found that Debellis's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury instruction on the statutory defense of voluntary surrender, which was supported by Debellis's testimony. Instead, counsel sought an inapplicable charge on temporary and lawful possession. The dissenting opinion argued that no reasonable view of the undisputed facts supported a voluntary surrender charge and that counsel's overall performance was not deficient.

Effective Assistance of CounselIneffective CounselJury InstructionsVoluntary Surrender DefenseCriminal Possession of a WeaponNew York Court of AppealsAppellate ReversalNew TrialLegal EthicsConstitutional Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anthony v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

This case addresses the liability of Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) as an "owner" under Labor Law § 240. The plaintiff, David Anthony, an employee of Richards "Of Course", was injured after falling from a billboard located on Conrail's right-of-way. The billboard had been mistakenly believed to be on Martisco Plumbing Corporation's property, which collected rent for it. The court found no evidence of Conrail's awareness, consent, or benefit from the billboard, nor any control over the work site. Citing precedent, the court determined that Conrail did not have the requisite nexus to the work or the structure to be considered an "owner" under the statute, and therefore dismissed the claims against it.

Labor Law § 240Owner LiabilityConstruction AccidentBillboard FallRight-of-WayTrespasser StatusLease AgreementThird-Party LiabilityPremises LiabilityProperty Ownership Dispute
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 703 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