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

German v. Pena

Plaintiff Alexander German, a Russian native, sued Frederico Pena, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, alleging national origin discrimination under Title VII. German claimed unequal employment terms, failure to promote, and prevention from competing for a promotion at the Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML). The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing German failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court found that German did not contact an EEO counselor within the required 45 days of the alleged discrimination, despite EML providing notice of these procedures. The court rejected regulatory and equitable exceptions, finding German's subjective ignorance of the EEO poster's content incredible and insufficient. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the action with prejudice.

National Origin DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActAdministrative ExhaustionEEO CounselingSummary JudgmentFederal EmployeesTimeliness RequirementEquitable TollingEquitable EstoppelPro Se Litigant
References
23
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06241
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2017

Acosta v. City of New York

The plaintiff, Pedro Acosta, initiated an action against the City of New York and several police officers for false arrest and battery. Following a first trial where the plaintiff prevailed, the City appealed, resulting in a new trial specifically on the battery claim. A second trial was conducted, and the jury again found in favor of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court subsequently issued an amended judgment based on this verdict. The City appealed this amended judgment, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision. The appellate court concluded that the jury's verdict was consistent with a fair interpretation of the evidence and that the Supreme Court's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were appropriate.

False ArrestBatteryPolice MisconductJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsJury ChargeSummation LimitsCivil Procedure
References
20
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04077 [240 AD3d 557]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2025

Acosta v. Shanahan Group, LLC

This case involves Fermin Gonzalez Acosta, who was injured when a rafter collapsed at a construction site, and his wife, who brought a derivative action against Shanahan Group, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability due to untimeliness and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiffs' motion was indeed untimely and that the defendant failed to establish prima facie that the injured plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court noted that the defendant's evidence did not prove the injured plaintiff could have used an available ladder for his task or knew he was expected to use it.

Construction Site InjuryLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentTimeliness of MotionSole Proximate CauseSafety DevicesRafter CollapseAppellate ReviewComparative NegligenceConstruction Accident Liability
References
5
Case No. ADJ3024498
Regular
Jul 02, 2015

GERMAN ACOSTA vs. AIMEE ANAYA, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration in the case of *Acosta v. Anaya*. This decision was made after an initial review of the record indicated a need for further study of the factual and legal issues. The WCAB granted reconsideration to ensure a complete understanding and to issue a just decision, ordering all related communications to be filed directly with the Commissioners. Pending the decision after reconsideration, any proposed settlements must be promptly communicated to the WCAB.

GERMAN ACOSTAAIMEE ANAYAALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANYSPECIALTY RISK SERVICESADJ3024498VNO 0558053PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONOPINION AND ORDERWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDEIDRA E. LOWE
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08125 [133 AD3d 470]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2015

Acosta v. Gouverneur Court Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff, Jesus Acosta, a maintenance worker, alleged he fell in a boiler room of a building owned by Gouverneur Court Limited Partnership when his pants caught on a brace or bracket. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence claim. The court found that the condition was not defective, but rather open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact and that the condition was plainly observable and did not constitute a trap or snare.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityOpen and ObviousInherently DangerousAppellate ReviewMaintenance WorkerBoiler RoomFall AccidentCommon-Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2006

Acosta v. Potter

Nydia Acosta sued the United States Postal Service (USPS) and Postmaster General John E. Potter for violating a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and the New York Metro Area Postal Union (Metro) for breaching its duty of fair representation. Acosta alleged that the USPS failed to place her in a new duty assignment within 28 days and did not pay her out-of-schedule wages, while Metro permitted the delay and refused to file a grievance. The court granted summary judgment in part for Metro, finding no breach of duty regarding an oral agreement to defer assignments or the class action grievance. However, a portion of the claim against Metro regarding misstatements in a grievance for March 29-30, 2004, survived. Summary judgment was also granted in part for the USPS, denying it for the periods where Metro's breach or reliance on Metro's authority were still in question. Acosta's motion to amend her complaint to reinstate the APWU as a defendant was granted.

Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActPostal Reorganization ActGrievance ProcessArbitrationUnion DiscretionBreach of ContractFederal Court Litigation
References
26
Case No. ADJ1942871 (SFO 0484458)
Regular
Jan 05, 2011

ROSALVA ACOSTA vs. ABMI INDUSTRIES

This case involves Rosalva Acosta's workers' compensation claim against ABMI INDUSTRIES. Acosta petitioned for reconsideration of a decision, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied her request. The WCAB found that her petition for reconsideration of a corrected order was essentially the same as a prior petition and adopted the administrative law judge's report denying the merits of her contentions. Therefore, the WCAB upheld the denial of reconsideration.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDROSALVA ACOSTAABMI INDUSTRIESESISORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONWCJFindings Award and OrderWCAB Rule 10859clerical errorscorrected Findings Award and Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ3024498 (VNO 0558053)
Regular
Jul 17, 2015

GERMAN ACOSTA vs. AIMEE ANAYA, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a worker's compensation applicant's repeated attempts to relitigate the issue of his employer's identity after it was already adjudicated. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a second petition for reconsideration, finding it frivolous and a successive filing. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision denying the claim and upholding sanctions against the applicant's representatives for wasting judicial resources. The concurring opinion further details the evidence supporting the WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to prove employment by either party under relevant Labor Code sections.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJsanctionsfrivolous conductre-litigationsuccessive petitionwrit of reviewlabor code section 3352(h)employee presumptionindependent contractor
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. Lufthansa German Airlines

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 4, 1977. Plaintiff sued Lufthansa German Airlines and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers for breach of an employment contract and sought reinstatement. The central issue revolved around the timeliness of Lufthansa's notice to extend plaintiff's probationary employment, which the Trial Term deemed untimely by applying General Construction Law § 20 to the contract's 10-day notice period. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the notice, issued on November 11, 1975, was one day late based on the calculation method. A dissenting opinion argued against the application of § 20, asserting it inappropriately curtails employer rights in probationary contracts.

Contract interpretationProbationary employmentTerminationTimeliness of noticeGeneral Construction LawAppellate reviewDissenting opinionEmployment lawUnion agreementSeniority status
References
6
Case No. ADJ8673054
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

BERNADETTE LEVSTIK vs. ACOSTA SALES AND MARKETING, THE HARTFORD

Here's a summary for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an Opinion and Order dismissing a Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Levstik v. Acosta Sales and Marketing. The dismissal occurred because the party who filed the petition voluntarily withdrew it. Consequently, the WCAB is no longer considering the appeal of the September 2, 2016 Findings of Fact, Order, and Award. The matter is now concluded with the dismissal of the reconsideration petition.

Petition for Reconsideration withdrawnDismissal OrderFindings of Fact Order and AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeADJ8673054ACOSTA SALES AND MARKETINGTHE HARTFORDBERNADETTE LEVSTIKVan Nuys District Office
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 60 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