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. ADJ9283205
Regular
Sep 01, 2017

ARTEMECIA MINARIK vs. DEL TACO, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Del Taco's petition for reconsideration, affirming that Artemicia Minarik's injury sustained in a car accident while returning from an Agreed Medical Examiner's appointment was a compensable consequence of her prior industrial back injury. The Board distinguished this case from situations where injuries arise solely from the litigation process, holding that attending an AME appointment is akin to receiving medical treatment. The applicant was required to attend the examination to obtain workers' compensation benefits, and the AME's opinion guides further necessary medical treatment.

Artemicia MinarikDel TacoACE American InsuranceCORVELADJ9283205Riverside District OfficePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factindustrial injurycompensable consequence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Del Franco v. New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Plaintiff Norma Del Franco sued her former employer, New York City OffTrack Betting Corporation (OTB), alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and a hostile work environment. Del Franco, hired at 63, was terminated at 65 due to alleged misconduct and insubordination, including using vulgar language, unauthorized window opening, failing to report for work, and refusing to serve a customer. The court found that Del Franco failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, and even if she had, OTB provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination that she could not prove were pretextual. Her hostile work environment claim was also dismissed for failing to show sufficiently severe or pervasive discriminatory intimidation. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and all of Del Franco's claims were dismissed.

Age DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment GrantEmployment DiscriminationADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act)McDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingPretext for DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentEmployee TerminationFederal Court Ruling
References
51
Case No. CA 12-00576
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2012

JOHNSON, JOSHUA v. DEL VALLE, JORGE

Plaintiff Joshua Johnson sought damages for injuries sustained at work when co-employee Jorge Del Valle allegedly threw a baseball, striking Johnson's face. Del Valle moved for summary judgment, arguing workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed the order, denied the motion, and reinstated the complaint. The court found that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether Del Valle's actions were within the scope of his employment, thereby challenging the applicability of the workers' compensation exclusivity provision.

Personal InjuryCo-employee LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of FactNegligenceWorkplace InjuryNew York Law
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05862 [152 AD3d 806]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2017

Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp.

The plaintiff, Rachina Phillips, sustained personal injuries after boiling water spilled on her right foot while preparing hot foods within the scope of her employment at a Taco Bell restaurant. She initiated an action against Taco Bell Corp. and Yum! Brands, Inc., alleging negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the plaintiff's employer, Taco Bell of America, LLC, was a subsidiary or sister company and that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy, or that they lacked ownership/control over the premises. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, determining that the affidavits submitted by the defendants did not qualify as documentary evidence under CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and failed to conclusively establish a defense or refute the plaintiff's factual allegations for both CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and (7).

Personal InjuryNegligenceCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary EvidenceMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedureAlter Ego LiabilityWorkers' Compensation DefensePremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1990

Del Casino v. City of New Rochelle

This case details an appeal by plaintiffs, including police officer Anthony Del Casino, from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The original order had granted the City of New Rochelle's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to dismiss affirmative defenses. Del Casino alleged negligence by the City in failing to properly maintain a footbridge, leading to personal injuries, and cited violations of the City Charter and Highway Law §§ 230 and 251. The Appellate Court modified the order by denying the defendant's summary judgment motion and reinstating the complaint, finding a valid cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to dismiss the City's fourth affirmative defense, which was deemed inapplicable to a statutory cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e.

Personal Injury DamagesNegligence ActionSummary Judgment MotionAffirmative Defenses DismissalPolice Officer InjuryMunicipal NegligenceFootbridge MaintenanceGeneral Municipal Law § 205-eHighway Law ViolationsComplaint Reinstatement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. Taco Bell Corp.

This Memorandum and Order addresses an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by Penny D. Miller against Taco Bell Corporation, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and New York State Human Rights Law. Miller, who has a severe hearing impairment, claimed she was denied a promotion and terminated due to her disability, and subjected to a hostile work environment. The defendant sought summary judgment, which the court granted. The court determined that while a factual dispute existed regarding the extent of Miller's disability, she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she did not formally apply for the promotion, and her termination and alleged lack of communication skills were supported by non-discriminatory reasons related to her interpersonal abilities, not her hearing. Furthermore, the court found her hostile work environment claims to be sporadic and not severe enough to constitute an abusive environment. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed, and state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActADANew York State Human Rights LawHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentHearing ImpairmentPretext for DiscriminationPrima Facie Case
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1996

Del Vecchio v. State

The claimants, Salvatore and Karen Del Vecchio, appealed an order from the Court of Claims which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim. Salvatore Del Vecchio was injured while rescuing a co-worker who fell into Jamaica Bay during bridge construction, arguing his back injuries were a result of the incident caused by unsecured planking and lack of safety devices. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that Labor Law § 240 (1) provides "exceptional protection" for specific gravity-related accidents (falling from height, struck by falling object) and does not extend to a rescuer like Del Vecchio, who did not sustain a direct gravity-related injury. The majority concluded that the "danger invites rescue" doctrine is not applicable to Labor Law § 240 (1) claims due to the statute's absolute liability and limited scope, which should not be expanded. A dissenting opinion argued that the doctrine should apply to workers injured while rescuing someone imperiled by a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation, emphasizing the statute's purpose of protecting workers and imposing strict liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Danger Invites Rescue DoctrineAbsolute LiabilityGravity-Related InjurySummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentElevated WorksiteProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Universal Packaging Corp. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Tina Del Regno filed a sexual harassment complaint against Universal Packaging Corporation (UPC) with the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) in 1994, and a retaliation claim with the EEOC in 1997. SDHR found probable cause on the 1994 complaint, but Del Regno requested dismissal for administrative convenience to pursue all claims in federal court, which SDHR granted in July 1998. Petitioners, likely UPC, sought judicial review under Executive Law § 298 to annul SDHR's dismissal, arguing it was arbitrary and seeking a remand for a public hearing. The court analyzed relevant legal precedents and legislative amendments to Executive Law § 297 (9), particularly concerning the annulment of the election of remedies. Concluding that Del Regno's plan to consolidate her state and federal claims in one forum justified the administrative convenience dismissal, the court dismissed the petition.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliation ClaimAdministrative ConvenienceJudicial ReviewHuman Rights LawElection of RemediesFederal Court JurisdictionState Law ClaimsExecutive LawEmployment Discrimination
References
7
Case No. ADJ8336634
Regular
May 01, 2017

MARITZA ESPINO vs. DEL TACO, ACE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Maritza Espino's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed untimely. California law allows 25 days to file such a petition after a decision is served by mail. The Board clarified that the petition must be *received* by the WCAB within this timeframe, not just mailed. Since the petition was filed over 25 days after the WCJ's decision, it was deemed jurisdictionally defective and thus dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictional Time LimitWCJ DecisionService by MailExtension of Time
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 124 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