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

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. 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. ADJ7222908
Regular
Jan 15, 2014

FIDELINO DEL CID vs. VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES, GALLAGHER BASSETT

Lien claimants sought reconsideration of a WCJ order dismissing their liens for failing to pay the Labor Code section 4903.06 activation fee. A federal court injunction had previously stayed enforcement of this fee provision. Consequently, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal orders, and returned the case for further proceedings. The lien claimants' liens are reinstated pending further action.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06Angelotti Chiropractic v. Bakerpreliminary injunctionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJrescind orderslien claimantsfederal district court
References
1
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. ADJ10364458
Regular
Feb 05, 2020

MARIA DEL CID vs. JONATHAN CLUB, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision grants a petition for reconsideration solely to correct a clerical error in the original Findings and Orders. The error involved a date in Finding of Fact No. 11, which was mistakenly listed as "4/1/19" instead of the intended "4/1/16." The WCAB adopted the judge's report, affirmed the underlying decision, and amended the specified finding to reflect the correct date. This correction allows treatment obtained by the applicant outside the MPN prior to April 1, 2016.

Petition for ReconsiderationReport of WCJclerical errorFindings and OrdersDecision After ReconsiderationKohanim ChiropracticMPNToccalino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.workers' compensation administrative law judgeADJ10364458
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Sher-Del Foods, Inc.

The Chapter 7 trustee for Sher-Del Foods, Inc. objected to a priority claim filed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of former employees. This claim sought recovery of a back pay award issued by the NLRB due to the debtor's failure to bargain over the effects of its prepetition business closure in March 1993. The core issue before the Bankruptcy Court was the characterization of this award as wages and its eligibility for priority under either section 507(a)(1) (administrative expense) or 507(a)(3) (wage claim) of the Bankruptcy Code. Presiding Judge Carl L. Bucki determined that the back pay award constituted earned wages and was thus entitled to priority status under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(3), capped at $2,000 per employee. However, the court denied the NLRB's contention that the claim should receive a higher administrative expense priority, concluding that the award stemmed from prepetition conduct and provided no postpetition benefit to the bankruptcy estate.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7Wage PriorityNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeBack Pay AwardAdministrative ExpenseDebtor's EstatePrepetition ClaimsPostpetition Services
References
18
Case No. 159 AD3d 1319
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Matter of Fernandes v. Del Frisco's Rest. Grp

Michelle Fernandes, a bartender, applied for workers' compensation benefits after allegedly falling at work and sustaining injuries. The employer's carrier disputed the claim, asserting the incident didn't occur as described and that Fernandes made false representations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, disallowing the claim and finding false representations, though no penalty was assessed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's rejection of claimant's testimony and medical proof, particularly given video evidence that contradicted her account of the fall and the Board's role in resolving credibility issues.

Workers' CompensationFall at WorkCredibility DisputeVideo EvidenceFalse RepresentationCompensable InjuryMedical Proof RejectionAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 92 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