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. 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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jarosz v. Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc.

This case involves plaintiffs, participants in the American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. Hourly-Rate Associates Pension Plan, who sued the defendants for alleged violations of ERISA. The plaintiffs challenged the defendants' decision to reduce their pension payments by the amount of workers' compensation payments received. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York applied a de novo review standard due to the defendants' intentional failure to comply with ERISA's claims procedure regulations. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on their ERISA claim, interpreting the plan's "Deductions for Workers Compensation" provision in their favor and ordering the defendants to pay full retroactive and prospective pension benefits with prejudgment interest. Plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel, de novo review as a separate cause of action, and equitable relief were dismissed or denied.

ERISAPension PlanWorkers' Compensation OffsetSummary JudgmentPlan AdministrationDe Novo ReviewPromissory EstoppelClaims ProcedureDeclaratory JudgmentBenefits Denial
References
68
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. 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 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

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

E.F.S. Ventures Corp. v. Foster

E.F.S. Ventures Corp., owner of the Beachcomber motel property, appealed the dismissal of two CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging conditions imposed by the Planning Board of the Town of East Hampton. After initially approving a modified site plan with a 'negative declaration' under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the Planning Board was later directed by the court to conduct a de novo environmental review. This review revealed major adverse environmental impacts, leading the Board to grant approval subject to conditions, including the destruction of 10 already constructed motel units. The petitioner argued that the conditions were arbitrary and capricious and that the Board should be equitably estopped from imposing them, having relied on prior approvals and completed construction. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that literal compliance with SEQRA is required, estoppel cannot be invoked against a governmental entity acting in its governmental capacity, and the petitioner proceeded at its own peril. The Planning Board's determination was deemed not arbitrary and capricious, having taken a 'hard look' at environmental concerns, and the refusal to compel certificates of occupancy was also upheld.

State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Site Plan ApprovalEnvironmental Impact StatementNegative DeclarationArbitrary and Capricious StandardEquitable EstoppelGovernmental CapacityCPLR Article 78De Novo ReviewCertificates of Occupancy
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 4,265 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