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

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. ADJ7469776
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

PAUL PALMER vs. KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns whether California workers' compensation jurisdiction applies to an out-of-state professional football player's cumulative injury claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant's minimal contact with California (5 out of 62 games) did not establish a sufficient connection for due process under *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*. The majority found that California lacked a legitimate and substantial interest in adjudicating the claim, deeming the applicant's contact "de minimis." Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that California has a substantial interest in injured workers and that the applicant's contact was more than de minimis, thus supporting WCAB jurisdiction.

WCABPaul PalmerKansas City ChiefsTravelers Property Casualty Company of AmericaADJ7469776Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeWCJFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)
References
2
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. ADJ9146501
Regular
Feb 06, 2023

MARCUS ROBINSON vs. CHICAGO BEARS, FAIRMONT PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY, ZENITH, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, MINNESOTA VIKINGS, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, BALTIMORE RAVENS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision barring applicant Marcus Robinson's claim in California. The Board found that Robinson's cumulative trauma injury, sustained over a lengthy professional football career, lacked a sufficient connection to California. Despite Robinson playing four games and practicing once in California, this exposure constituted only about 3% of his career, similar to a prior case that found such a connection de minimis. The Board clarified that while statutory jurisdiction exists, exercising it here would violate due process.

WCABReconsiderationJohnsonCalifornia JurisdictionDue ProcessCumulative TraumaProfessional Football PlayerEmployment NexusDe MinimisStatutory Jurisdiction
References
3
Case No. ADJ8260810
Regular
Jul 07, 2015

DANIEL STRYZINSKI vs. NEW YORK JETS, THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TIG INSURANCE, ATLANTA FALCONS, PITTSBURGH STEELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision that California lacks jurisdiction over his cumulative trauma claim. The ALJ found that the applicant's participation in only 21 out of 275 professional football games played in California did not establish a sufficient connection to the state for due process purposes. The majority opinion relied on the *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)* case, holding that California's interest was not substantial enough to assert jurisdiction given the applicant's lack of residency and hiring in the state. A dissenting opinion argued that California has a legitimate interest in compensating workers injured within its borders and that the applicant's connection was more than "de minimis," thus supporting WCAB jurisdiction.

StryzinskiProfessional AthleteCumulative TraumaJurisdictionDue ProcessFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)Legitimate and Substantial InterestDe MinimisExtraterritorial ProvisionsLabor Code section 3600.5
References
2
Case No. ADJ7286848
Regular
Aug 03, 2015

EMANUAL DAVIS vs. ATLANTA HAWKS, FEDERAL INSURANCE (CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES), TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, HOUSTON ROCKETS, SEATTLE SUPERSONICS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a professional basketball player's cumulative injury claim against former employers and their insurers. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed an award to the applicant, finding California had jurisdiction based on the applicant's games played in the state and, potentially, a contract of hire in California. Defendants argued California lacked jurisdiction, citing *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*, which held that a single game did not create a substantial connection. However, the WCAB distinguished this case, finding the applicant's California exposure more than "de minimis" and noting the applicant's testimony about an injury sustained in California. One commissioner dissented, arguing the applicant's California games constituted less than 8% of his career and thus did not establish a "legitimate and substantial connection" for jurisdiction under *Johnson*.

WCABcumulative industrial injuryprofessional basketball playerextraterritorial provisionsde minimiscontract of hirejurisdiction14th Amendmentdue processliability
References
22
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 865 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