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

Benjamin v. Traffic Executive Ass'n-Eastern

Plaintiffs, employees of the Eastern Weighing and Inspection Bureau (EWIB), sought protective benefits under the Staggers Act after their employment was terminated due to EWIB ceasing operations. An arbitration board determined that EWIB employees were not 'employees of a rate bureau' and thus not entitled to the benefits. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint in federal court, alleging violations of the Staggers Act, mail fraud, RICO, and common law fraud, and moved for a trial de novo. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the arbitration award should be upheld. The court reviewed the arbitration award under the limited provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), finding no grounds to set it aside. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiffs' motion for a trial de novo, and dismissed the complaint.

Staggers ActArbitration AwardSummary JudgmentRailway Labor ActCollateral EstoppelDue ProcessArticle III CourtsJury TrialRICOAdministrative Procedure Act
References
34
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

Martin v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Barbara E. Martin filed an action under the Employees’ Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA), alleging wrongful denial of total and permanent disability benefits by her former employer, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, who recommended granting DuPont's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. District Judge Arcara, upon a de novo review, adopted the proposed findings. The court determined that DuPont's denial of benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, as Martin failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate a total and permanent disability as defined by the Plan, particularly regarding her condition immediately prior to termination. Consequently, DuPont's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewTotal and Permanent DisabilityMedical EvidenceRotator Cuff InjuryImpingement SyndromeChronic Tendinitis
References
17
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03999
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Claim of De Ruggiero v. City of New York Department of Citywide Administrative Services

The claimant, Frank J. De Ruggiero, was injured in two work-related accidents and classified with a permanent partial disability. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined a 50% loss of wage-earning capacity, which the Workers' Compensation Board later modified to 35%. The employer appealed, arguing that since the claimant returned to work at preaccident wages, his wage-earning capacity was 100%. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, differentiating between 'wage-earning capacity' and 'loss of wage-earning capacity,' and found that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence, noting that loss of wage-earning capacity is fixed for setting durational limits on benefits, irrespective of current employment status.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionWage Loss BenefitsWork-related InjuryImpairmentJudicial ReviewAdministrative ReviewDisability Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Foley

The petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals' (the board) determination that a drug abuse counseling center was a permitted use for Daytop Village Foundation, Inc. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, annulled the board's decision and remitted the matter for a de novo hearing. Daytop and the board members appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, confirmed the board's original determination, and dismissed the proceeding on the merits. The court found the board's interpretation of the zoning ordinance, which permitted 'professional office uses,' to be rational and supported by substantial evidence, noting that Daytop's facility was licensed and staffed by professionals.

Zoning OrdinanceProfessional Office UseDrug Abuse Counseling CenterPermitted UseTown of GreenburghZoning Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceLand Use
References
9
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clause v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1970

Hoda v. De Lillo Construction Co.

In a negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries, the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered a judgment from which defendant and third-party plaintiff De Lillo Construction Co. and defendant Carmela Hasenfus appealed. The judgment was in favor of the plaintiff based on a jury verdict for liability and a stipulated damage amount of $40,000. De Lillo Construction Co. also appealed the dismissal of its cross-complaint against Hasenfus and its third-party complaint against Great American Insurance Company. The plaintiff, a construction worker, was injured when a crane cable, provided by De Lillo, snapped and caused concrete to fall on him. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the jury's negligence finding against De Lillo and Hasenfus was supported by expert testimony regarding a defective cable. The jury's determination that plaintiff and Hasenfus were not co-employees, thus allowing recovery, was also upheld, as was the dismissal of De Lillo's cross-complaint and third-party complaint.

negligencepersonal injuryconstruction accidentcrane failuredefective equipmentjury verdictemployer liabilityco-employeeWorkmen's Compensation Lawcross-complaint
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1989

Gaspard v. American Transit Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order and judgment that confirmed a July 19, 1987 arbitrator’s award and a December 28, 1987 master arbitrator’s award. The respondent’s application for a trial de novo was denied, and the petitioner was awarded judgment including principal, interest, attorneys’ fees, and disbursements, totaling $66,443.42. The respondent argued that interest was improperly calculated and that proof of claim was never properly filed, contentions raised for the first time on a motion for reargument which was denied and not appealed. The appellate court found these arguments precluded by the respondent’s failure to raise them in a timely appeal to the master arbitrator and affirmed the lower court's decision.

Arbitrator's AwardTrial De NovoInterest CalculationWorkers' Compensation ClaimsTimeliness of AppealReargumentAppellate ReviewCPLR 7510Master ArbitratorProof of Claim
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 9,441 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