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. ADJ4549941 (OXN 0133428) ADJ1729960 (OXN 0133245)
Regular
Jan 13, 2011

MARIA CORTEZ vs. EL TACO DE MEXICO, SCIF INSURED OXNARD

This case concerns Maria Cortez's workers' compensation claims against El Taco de Mexico and its insurer, SCIF. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has issued an order denying reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration has been officially denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria CortezEl Taco de MexicoSCIF Insured OxnardOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJ reportAdopt and incorporateDeidra E. Lowe
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matos v. Aeronaves De Mexico, S.A.

Hector Matos sued his former employer, Aeronaves De Mexico, S.A., and his union, District 146 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, alleging wrongful discharge and breach of the duty of fair representation, respectively. Matos was terminated for insubordination after refusing to perform cashier duties, arguing a lack of proper training. The union negotiated Matos's return to work on the condition that his grievance hearing would be final and binding, thereby waiving arbitration. Matos contended he was unaware of this crucial agreement. The court found no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union in handling Matos's grievance, noting the benefits he received from the negotiated settlement. Consequently, as the prerequisite breach of the duty of fair representation was not established, Matos's claim against Aeronaves for wrongful discharge was also dismissed. The judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants, dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims.

Wrongful DischargeDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementInsubordinationAirline IndustryRailway Labor ActGrievance ProcedureWaiver of ArbitrationFinal and Binding DecisionUnion Discretion
References
16
Case No. ADJ1729960 (OXN 0133245) ADJ4549941 (OXN 0133248)
Regular
Feb 08, 2010

MARIA CORTEZ vs. EL TACO DE MEXICO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order vacating a prior award was not a final order under Labor Code section 5900. The WCAB also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable injury justifying removal. The WCAB noted that a lien trial was already scheduled, providing a timely path to resolution. Therefore, the defendant's request to overturn the rescinding order was rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Rescinding Findings and AwardLien ClaimantRepackaged Prescriptive MedicationsBurden of ProofFinal OrderLabor Code section 5900Administrative Law Judge
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dapelo v. Banco Nacional De Mexico

The plaintiff initiated an action alleging age and sex discrimination under the ADEA, Title VII, and New York's Human Rights Law, alongside claims for retaliation, slander, libel, and harassment against defendant Banco Nacional De Mexico and individual defendants. The core of the complaint stemmed from a denied promotion and retaliatory actions after an EEOC filing. The defendants sought to dismiss all state law claims. The court granted the defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims. The decision was based on the divergence in remedies available under federal and state laws, which could lead to jury confusion, and the unsettled nature of New York state law regarding the election of remedies when an EEOC complaint is automatically referred to the SDHR.

Age discriminationSex discriminationEmployment lawTitle VIIADEANew York Human Rights LawRetaliationSlanderLibelHarassment
References
28
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01140
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2020

Boody v. El Sol Contr. & Constr. Corp.

Robert Boody, a construction worker for subcontractor Caribe Construction Co., sustained injuries while working on a bridge repair project for general contractor El Sol Contracting and Construction Corporation in Queens. The incident occurred as Boody attempted to move between two barges, alleging his leg was pinned by a tightening mooring line. Boody initiated a personal injury action against El Sol, asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), claims which the Supreme Court initially declined to dismiss. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, granting El Sol's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court concluded that El Sol had established the accident resulted from the method of work, not a dangerous premises condition, and that El Sol lacked supervisory control over the work, thereby dismissing the Labor Law claims against them.

Construction accidentLabor Lawsummary judgmentpremises liabilitysupervisory controlsubcontractorgeneral contractorappellate decisionpersonal injuryworkplace safety
References
9
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. 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
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03108 [238 AD3d 1393]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Matter of Solomon-El (Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Norma Solomon-El was terminated from her employment as a direct care healthcare worker after failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, having had her request for a religious exemption denied. She was subsequently disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits by the Department of Labor, a decision upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Although the Board's initial July 29, 2022 decision was later rescinded and replaced by a December 5, 2023 decision (which again upheld the disqualification, finding no sincerely held religious beliefs), Solomon-El's appeal was solely from the July 2022 decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed her appeal as moot due to the rescinded decision and because she abandoned any challenge to the superseding December 2023 decision by failing to file an updated brief. The court also noted that, even on the merits, substantial evidence would support the Board's December 2023 determination.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary SeparationGood CauseCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateReligious ExemptionAppeal Board DecisionMoot AppealAbandoned AppealSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Division
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 560 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