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. No. 92
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2019

Jose Rivera v. State of New York

This New York Court of Appeals case addresses the State's vicarious liability for an assault committed by correction officers on an inmate. The inmate, Jose Rivera, was brutally attacked by Officer Michael Wehby and restrained by other officers, Femia and LaTour. The Court of Claims and Appellate Division found Wehby's actions were outside the scope of employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Wehby's unprovoked and excessive force was a significant departure from his duties, thus precluding vicarious liability under respondeat superior. The dissenting judges argued that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the other officers, who restrained Rivera, acted within the scope of their employment, potentially believing they were maintaining prison order.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityCorrectional Officer MisconductInmate AssaultScope of Employment DoctrineSummary Judgment AffirmationExcessive ForceCorrection Law ViolationsIntentional TortsAppellate Review
References
45
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02207 [193 AD3d 1214]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Matter of Rivera v. Joseph L. Balkan, Inc.

Claimant Jose Rivera sustained a work-related back injury in March 2017 and later stopped working in May 2018, claiming an exacerbation of his back injury and a new left shoulder injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found that Rivera failed to demonstrate a causally-related left shoulder injury and voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions. The Court found that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Rivera's departure from his employment was voluntary and not due to a work-related disability, thus upholding the denial of benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketCausally-Related InjurySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDisability BenefitsCredibility AssessmentMaximum Medical ImprovementBack InjuryShoulder Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Harvest Bakery Inc.

This case involves allegations by plaintiffs Maximino Rivera, Miguel Roldan, and Oscar Quintanilla against Harvest Bakery, Inc., Robert Marconti, and Jose Gonzalez. The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to pay overtime and spread of hours wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The core of the dispute revolves around whether the defendants had a common policy of not paying these wages to their production workers. The Court addresses the defendants' arguments regarding the prematurity and mootness of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, ultimately rejecting them. The Court then proceeds to grant the plaintiffs' motion, certifying a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees who worked for Harvest Bakery in New York, and appoints class counsel, finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, and superiority) have been met.

Wage and Hour LawOvertime PaySpread of Hours WagesClass Action CertificationRule 23(b)(3)FLSA ViolationNYLL ViolationCommonalityTypicalityNumerosity
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Quinones-Rivera

Marcia Quinones-Rivera appealed from an order of protection and an order of disposition issued by the Family Court, Queens County. The order of protection directed her to stay away from the petitioner, while the order of disposition found her in contempt of that order and placed her on probation. The appellate court affirmed the order of protection, concluding that the Family Court's determination of a family offense was supported by a fair preponderance of credible evidence. However, the court reversed the order of disposition, dismissing the supplemental petition, due to insufficient proof that Quinones-Rivera was aware of the content of the order of protection prior to the alleged violation.

Family LawOrder of ProtectionContempt of CourtAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationKnowledge RequirementDue ProcessFamily Court ActQueens CountyProbation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. United States

Plaintiff Aracelie Rivera sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injuries and property damage sustained on December 12, 2008. A United States Postal Service tractor-trailer struck her car while she was stopped at a red light in Manhattan. The court found the Postal driver negligent for failing to maintain a careful watch while backing up the large vehicle. Rivera was found to have met the 'serious injury' requirement of New York's no-fault statute, demonstrating significant limitations due to disc derangement and cord compression in her cervical spine. Despite a pre-existing condition from a 1996 accident, the court determined the 2008 accident caused a severe aggravation. The court awarded Rivera $250,000.00 for past and future pain and suffering.

Federal Tort Claims ActNegligenceAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjurySpinal Cord CompressionCervical Disc HerniationRadiculopathyMyelopathyMedical CausationPain and Suffering Damages
References
19
Case No. ADJ1357359 (ANA 0384919) ADJ2070955 (ANA 0381261) ADJ2274268 (ANA 0381264) ADJ1962006 (ANA 0381265)
Regular
Oct 04, 2011

JOSE RIVERA vs. CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, ARROWWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY

This case concerns the proper rating schedule for Jose Rivera's multiple industrial injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the administrative law judge erred by applying the 1997 rating schedule to all injuries. Specifically, the Board determined that the 2005 rating schedule should apply to the lumbar spine injury, as the medical report cited did not indicate permanent disability. However, a report from November 2004 did indicate permanent disability for the left lower extremity injury, thus allowing the use of the 1997 schedule for that specific injury. The Board rescinded the prior award and remanded the case for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJose RiveraCentral Freight LinesArrowwood IndemnityJoint Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityLumbar SpinePsycheLeft WristLeft Foot
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 1986

Rivera v. Feinstein

Plaintiffs Manuel Rivera, Idalia Gonzalez, and members of Local 2H sought a preliminary injunction to prevent a disciplinary hearing against Gonzalez and to secure office access for Rivera, arguing violations of LMRDA free expression rights. They also moved for leave to file a supplemental complaint. The court denied the preliminary injunction, finding no irreparable harm and noting that internal union remedies should be exhausted, particularly as charges against Gonzalez were partially withdrawn and an explanation could resolve the dispute. Rivera's office access was deemed an arbitration issue. However, the court granted leave to file the supplemental complaint, finding no undue delay or prejudice to the defendants.

Union DisputeLabor RightsPreliminary InjunctionLMRDAFree SpeechIntra-union ConflictDisciplinary HearingSupplemental ComplaintExhaustion of RemediesArbitration
References
15
Case No. ADJ1528452 (LAO 0884582)
Regular
Mar 05, 2009

ARACELY LUGO, JOSE LUGO vs. A. RIVERA TRUCKING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a workers' compensation death claim for Jose Lugo, with Aracely Lugo as the applicant. The defendant, A. Rivera Trucking, Inc. and State Compensation Insurance Fund, sought removal from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) after their request to delay a mandatory settlement conference for further discovery on dependency issues was denied. The defendant also objected to the bifurcation of the Serious and Willful Misconduct claim, arguing it would cause prejudice. The WCAB denied the petition for removal, adopting the WCJ's report which found the defendant had not demonstrated due diligence in pursuing discovery and had previously stipulated to bifurcating the Serious and Willful Misconduct claim.

Petition for RemovalDenying RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceDependency IssueSerious and Willful Misconduct PetitionBifurcationDeath ClaimCrushed PelvisApplicantDefendant
References
0
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05837 [142 AD3d 463]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2016

Matter of Rivera v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation

Carlos Rivera's probationary employment as a sanitation worker was terminated by the New York City Department of Sanitation. Rivera petitioned to annul this determination, and the Supreme Court granted his petition due to the Department's purported default, denying the Department's motion to vacate. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this judgment, finding that the Department's 'law office failure' was a reasonable excuse for default. The Court also determined that the Department demonstrated a meritorious defense, as Rivera, a probationary employee, was terminated for legitimate reasons, including his arrest for DWI and subsequent license suspension/revocation. Consequently, the Appellate Division vacated the default judgment, denied Rivera's petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Probationary EmploymentTermination of EmploymentDefault JudgmentMotion to VacateLaw Office FailureMeritorious DefenseCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewDWI ArrestDriver's License Revocation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2005

Rivera v. City of New York

Terrence C. Rivera sued the City of New York and Dr. Kimberley Norton alleging employment discrimination based on national origin, gender, heterosexuality, marital status, and veteran status, alongside various common law claims. Rivera's complaint stemmed from his psychological disqualification for a police officer position. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence to support Rivera's discrimination claims or violations of his due process and equal protection rights. The common law claims, including contract, promissory estoppel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference, were also dismissed on substantive and procedural grounds.

Employment DiscriminationPsychological DisqualificationSummary JudgmentCivil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionNew York City Police DepartmentNational Origin DiscriminationGender DiscriminationVeteran Status Discrimination
References
90
Showing 1-10 of 772 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