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. ADJ11369088, ADJ11369087
Regular
Mar 24, 2025

Argelia De Luna vs. Valleywide Newspaper, LLC; Twin City Fire Insurance Company

Applicant Argelia De Luna sought reconsideration of the First Amended Findings, Award and Orders issued by the WCJ on December 16, 2024. The WCJ initially found a 68% permanent partial disability for cumulative trauma, which was later amended to 15%. Applicant argued that the WCJ's decision should have been based on unrebutted reports, that the medical record needs further development, and that defendant failed to prove apportionment. The Appeals Board granted the petition, indicating that the medical evidence might be insufficient and further review is necessary, deferring a final decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFirst Amended Findings Award and OrdersArgelia De LunaValleywide Newspaper LLCTwin City Fire Insurance CompanyADJ11369088ADJ11369087arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE)permanent and stationary
References
28
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05972
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2019

Luna v. 4300 Crescent, LLC

Hector Luna, the injured plaintiff, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which dismissed his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Luna was injured while moving a mortar buggy down a ramp during construction. A jury found the defendants not liable, and Luna's subsequent motion to set aside the verdict was denied. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, determining that a rational jury could conclude Luna's own actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court also found the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction AccidentJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceProximate CauseSole Proximate CauseMortar Buggy
References
13
Case No. CA 12-01064
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2012

LUNA, JOSEPH v. ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF BUFFALO, INC.

Plaintiff Joseph Luna, a carpenter, commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained from a fall during a construction project for the defendant, Zoological Society of Buffalo, Inc. The Supreme Court granted Luna's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The court found that Luna met his burden by showing injury from a fall from an elevated surface due to the defendant's failure to provide sufficient safety devices. The defendant's argument that Luna's own conduct was the sole proximate cause was rejected, as the nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1) requires more than just providing instructions or making devices available.

Construction AccidentElevated Work SurfaceLabor Law § 240(1)Worker SafetyLiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFall InjuriesNondelegable DutyRecalcitrant Worker Defense
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. ADJ9225006
Regular
Jul 10, 2015

JUAN LUNA CASTRO (Deceased), MARINA AYALA DE LUNA (Widow) vs. REDWOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns the death of Juan Luna Castro, a groundskeeper, in a motor vehicle accident during his scheduled work hours. The defendant employer sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding that the death arose out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that Castro was on a business errand to purchase supplies for a company-sponsored BBQ, a task he had performed in previous years. The Board found his actions to be reasonable and impliedly permitted by his employment, thus satisfying the AOE/COE standard despite a prior reprimand for other work-related issues.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationGroundskeeperfatal motor vehicle accidentburden of proofindustrial injurycourse of employmentarising out of employmentcompany sponsored BBQobtaining supplies
References
7
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 02309
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2025

Buchanan v. De Orio

The plaintiff, John Buchanan, was injured after falling from a ladder while cleaning gutters at the defendants' two-family home. He had previously installed the gutters. Buchanan commenced an action against the homeowners, Michael De Orio et al., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding the homeowner's exemption applied to the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims due to no direction or control by the defendants. For the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, the court determined the defendants lacked authority to supervise or control the work. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.

Homeowner's ExemptionLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceFall from LadderSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTwo-Family Dwelling
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 457 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