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. ADJ1036250 (LBO 0379542)
Regular
Jan 02, 2014

RAMON BAUTISTA vs. DE LA ROSA MANUFACTURING, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by a lien claimant in the case of Bautista v. De La Rosa Manufacturing, Inc. The WCAB found the petition to be untimely because it was filed more than 25 days after the October 15, 2013 order, exceeding the statutory deadline. Additionally, the petition was dismissed for being unverified. Therefore, the WCAB ordered the Petition for Reconsideration dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013DismissalUnverifiedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeLien claimantDe La Rosa Manufacturing
References
0
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. ADJ9743291
Regular
Nov 06, 2018

CDWARD DE LA ROSA vs. ALL AREA PLUMBING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed applicant Edward De La Rosa's removal petition, finding the WCAB lacks jurisdiction over his claim. De La Rosa failed to timely dispute his claim denial through the mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, as required by his union's agreement. Specifically, he did not request a Qualified Medical Evaluator within the prescribed 30-day period after receiving notice of denial. This failure to follow the ADR procedures, including timely dispute resolution steps, bars the WCAB from adjudicating the merits of his injury claim.

RemovalLabor Code section 5301Petition for RemovalDue ProcessJurisdictionADR ProgramCertified RecordApplication for AdjudicationPetition to DismissQualified Medical Evaluator
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04216
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of De La Cruz v. Aufiero Painting Indus. Inc.

Claimant Juan De La Cruz appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his claim for benefits due to an unwitnessed scaffolding accident. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling, which found the claimant's description of the accident inconsistent and therefore did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The Board also denied the claimant's request for full Board review as untimely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed both Board decisions, deferring to the Board's credibility determination and finding that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the untimely request for full Board review.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceScaffolding AccidentBack InjuryUntimely AppealBoard ReviewAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Cruz v. Chater

Pro se plaintiff Brígida De La Cruz challenged the Commissioner's denial of her application for disability benefits, alleging disability due to degenerative disc disease and arthritis. The Administrative Law Judge previously found that Ms. De La Cruz was not disabled and could return to her work as a sewing machine operator, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. In this federal action, the court reviewed extensive medical evidence from various treating and consultative physicians, including expert testimony from an orthopedist. The court ultimately found that the medical evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that Ms. De La Cruz retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work, despite her back condition. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, affirming the denial of disability benefits.

Disability BenefitsDegenerative Disc DiseaseChronic Back PainResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Social Security AdministrationMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudgment on the PleadingsPro Se Plaintiff
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centro De La Comunidad His-pana De Locust Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay

The Town of Oyster Bay enacted an ordinance in 2009 prohibiting individuals from stopping vehicles in public rights-of-way to solicit work and drivers from stopping to solicit employees. Plaintiffs, Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley and The Workplace Project, challenged the ordinance, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights. The Court found that the ordinance regulated commercial speech and applied the Central Hudson test. While acknowledging the Town's substantial interest in traffic safety and public welfare, the Court concluded that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored. It deemed the ordinance unconstitutional due to its overbreadth, as it prohibited lawful expressive conduct that did not necessarily pose a threat to safety, and noted the availability of less speech-restrictive alternatives. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was granted.

First AmendmentCommercial SpeechOrdinanceSolicitation of EmploymentConstitutional OverbreadthSummary JudgmentDay LaborersPublic Right-of-WayTraffic SafetyContent-Based Restriction
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay

This case involves two organizations, Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley and The Workplace Project, advocating for immigrant workers, suing the Town of Oyster Bay and its Supervisor John Venditto. They challenged a town ordinance prohibiting day laborers from soliciting work from vehicles, claiming violations of free speech, due process, and equal protection rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court denied the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Centro had organizational standing. It also granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims, deeming them mirror images of the plaintiffs' claims. Finally, the Court affirmed Magistrate Judge Lindsay's protective order, preventing the disclosure of plaintiff organizations' members and day laborers' identities, citing freedom of association rights and the potential for harassment.

Day LaborersSolicitation OrdinanceFree SpeechDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentOrganizational StandingSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment Act
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co.

This case addresses whether municipal vessels qualify as "public works" under Labor Law § 220 and Article I, § 17 of the New York State Constitution, thereby mandating prevailing wages for workers involved in their construction, maintenance, or repair. Plaintiffs, employees of Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co., Inc., sued their employer and its sureties, asserting that they were third-party beneficiaries to contracts between Caddell and New York City agencies for work on various municipal vessels, including Staten Island Ferries and fireboats. The lower courts had dismissed the complaint, citing prior precedent, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Court established a new three-prong test for determining if a project is a "public work": (1) a public agency must be a party to a contract involving laborers, (2) the contract must involve construction-like labor paid by public funds, and (3) the primary objective of the work must benefit the general public. Applying this test, the Court concluded that municipal vessels serving the general public's use or benefit are indeed "public works," thus granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

Public works doctrinePrevailing wage lawLabor LawState Constitutional LawMunicipal vesselsStaten Island FerryFireboatsPublic benefitConstruction laborPublic funds
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Peña v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

The plaintiff, Ab-don De La Peña, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and Sang Im, alleging discrimination based on race/color and national origin, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court, presided over by District Judge Spatt, reviewed the plaintiff's claims, including new allegations, and determined that they were either untimely or failed to establish a plausible inference of discrimination. Specifically, the court found that the alleged incidents were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment, nor was there a clear causal link to the plaintiff's protected status. The constructive discharge claim also failed as the working conditions were not deemed intolerable. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Title VIISection 1981Statute of Limitations
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S.A.F. La Sala Corp. v. CNA Insurance Companies

Plaintiffs S.A.F. La Sala Corp. and La Sala Mason Corp. (collectively La Sala) obtained a comprehensive general liability policy from defendant Transcontinental Insurance Co., an affiliate of CNA Insurance Companies. The policy included a composite rate change endorsement establishing a minimum premium of $165,827. Following an audit, the earned premium was determined to be $107,336. Transcontinental refunded La Sala the difference between the estimated and minimum premiums, which was $55,275. La Sala initiated legal action, contending they were owed an additional $58,491, representing the difference between the estimated and earned premiums, and the motion court initially granted summary judgment in their favor. This appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, denying La Sala's motion for summary judgment and granting Transcontinental's cross-motion, ruling that the endorsement clearly mandated the retention of the minimum premium and did not violate New York Insurance Law.

Insurance LawContract InterpretationMinimum Premium ClauseSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentAppellate ReviewPolicy EndorsementEarned PremiumEstimated Premium
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,152 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