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

De Los Santos v. City of New York

Plaintiff Alsacia De Los Santos sued the City of New York, NYPD, and Lt. Christopher Pasquerelli, alleging retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state/municipal human rights laws. De Los Santos claimed Lt. Pasquerelli retaliated against her for reporting a sexual encounter between two police officers, Lt. Kevin Leddy and Officer Tara Eckert. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to state a First Amendment claim, could not show municipal liability, and failed to state a claim under human rights laws. The Court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's conversations about the sexual encounter did not constitute speech on a matter of public concern for First Amendment purposes. Additionally, the court found she could not reasonably believe she was reporting sexual harassment under human rights laws.

RetaliationFirst AmendmentPublic ConcernSummary JudgmentSexual HarassmentNYPDPolice MisconductEmployment DiscriminationMunicipal LiabilityQualified Immunity
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buckley v. City of New York

This case addresses the continued applicability of the fellow-servant rule in New York. It consolidates two appeals: Buckley v City of New York, involving a police officer shot by a co-worker, and Lawrence v City of New York, where a firefighter was injured by a fellow firefighter. Both plaintiffs secured jury verdicts against the City based on vicarious liability, which the City challenged under the fellow-servant rule. The court reviewed the historical origins and rationales of the rule, noting its significant curtailment by workers' compensation legislation and prior judicial criticism. Ultimately, the court found that the fellow-servant rule no longer serves a valid purpose and imposes an unjust hardship, leading to its complete abolition in New York. The Appellate Division's orders affirming the judgments against the City were affirmed.

abolition of fellow-servant rulerespondeat superiorvicarious liabilityemployer liabilityco-employee negligencepolice officer injuryfirefighter injurycommon law developmentjudicial precedenttort law
References
9
Case No. ADJ19483147
Regular
Jun 19, 2025

MICHAEL LEWIS vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the arbitrator's Amended Findings and Award from April 8, 2024, in the case of Michael Lewis v. City of Los Angeles. The Board previously granted reconsideration due to an incomplete record, specifically missing exhibits and vocational evidence. The defendant, City of Los Angeles, sought reconsideration, asserting errors in the arbitrator's finding of catastrophic injury and permanent total disability. The WCAB emphasized the importance of due process and a complete evidentiary record for meaningful review, citing several legal precedents. The matter is returned to the arbitrator for further proceedings and to supplement the record.

WCABReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardArbitratorCity of Los AngelesCatastrophic injuryPermanent total disabilityLabor CodeBack injuryPetition for Reconsideration
References
22
Case No. ADJ2283954 (VNO 0432216), ADJ964608 (VNO 0389951), ADJ2772045 (VNO 0441677), ADJ4352593 (VNO 0497775), ADJ267752 (PAS 0040169), ADJ414407 (PAS 0040492), ADJ1160769 (VNO 0494740), ADJ2170521 (VNO 0465060), ADJ2143182 (VNO 0499960), ADJ2945284 (VNO 0408504)
Regular
Oct 13, 2015

SEAN HANSEN, LISA LAWSON, TIMOTHY GILBERT, CARLOS GONZALEZ vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and returned multiple lien claims against the City of Los Angeles to the trial level. The WCAB found that the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred by applying collateral estoppel based on a prior decision in *Halaby v. City of Los Angeles*. The WCAB clarified that the doctrine of laches is fact-specific and a prior finding of laches does not preclude relitigation of the issue in new cases. Therefore, the defendant must prove the elements of laches independently for each current lien claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermissibly Self-InsuredPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationLiensLachesCollateral EstoppelWCJHalaby v. City of Los AngelesNegotiated Rates
References
4
Case No. ADJ8949346, ADJ10021120
Regular
Aug 16, 2016

ANTHONY BERNARD EDWARDS (DEC) vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Anthony Bernard Edwards, deceased, versus the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports. This decision allows for further review of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned outcome. All future communications regarding the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not with the district office or through the Electronic Adjudication Management System. The order specifies that trial-level documents unrelated to the reconsideration petition should continue to be e-filed normally.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONGRANTING RECONSIDERATIONCITY OF LOS ANGELESLOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTSVAN NUYS DISTRICT OFFICEDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONSTATUTORY TIME CONSTRAINTSFACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUESJUST AND REASONED DECISION
References
0
Case No. ADJ11171496; ADJ3047881
Regular
May 19, 2025

DAVID ANTHONY WILSON vs. CITY OF POMONA; ADMINSURE, CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision addresses a clerical error found in its previous decision from May 15, 2025. The original decision erroneously included Joseph V. Capurro, Commissioner, as a panel member. The current order formally corrects this error by removing Commissioner Capurro's name, without the need for reconsideration. The underlying case involved David Anthony Wilson as the applicant against the City of Pomona, AdminSure, and the City of Los Angeles, with adjudication numbers ADJ11171496 and ADJ3047881, originating from the Pomona District Office. The original May 15, 2025 decision was an Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition For Removal, issued after the petitioner withdrew their request for removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical Error CorrectionOpinion and OrderPetition for RemovalJoseph V. CapurroCommissionerDavid Anthony WilsonCity of PomonaCity of Los AngelesAdjudication Numbers
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cividanes v. City of New York

The case concerns a plaintiff who sued the City of New York and two transit authorities for negligence after sustaining an ankle injury from a pothole while alighting a bus. The claim against the City was dismissed due to lack of prior written notice, while the claim against the authorities alleged a breach of duty to provide a safe disembarking location. The dissenting opinion argues that the No-Fault Insurance Law should apply, as the injury arose from the use or operation of a motor vehicle—specifically, the bus driver's negligent positioning. This contrasts with the majority's decision, which affirmed the Appellate Division's order, finding the No-Fault Law inapplicable because the injury did not arise from the use or operation of a motor vehicle. The dissent cites *Manuel v New York City Tr. Auth.* as relevant precedent, distinguishing it from *Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.*

NegligenceNo-Fault Insurance LawMotor Vehicle OperationPothole InjuryBus AccidentProximate CauseDisembarking SafetyDuty of CareAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
4
Case No. ADJ2150246
Regular
Aug 05, 2009

RANDY CANISTER vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Los Angeles' petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the workers' compensation judge's order requiring the City to pay untimely Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) at the temporary disability rate plus a penalty. This decision was based on the finding that the City failed to appeal parts of a prior Rehabilitation Unit Determination awarding retroactive VRMA, thus making those awards final and enforceable despite the subsequent repeal of Labor Code section 139.5. Citing *Weiner v. Ralphs Company*, the Board reiterated that vested rights, even under repealed statutes, remain enforceable.

Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Labor Code section 139.5 repealvested rightsfinal orderadjudicationAppeals BoardRehabilitation Unittemporary disability (TD) ratepenaltyWeiner v. Ralphs Company
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deneen v. City of New York

The plaintiff, an individual whose union entered into a wage deferral agreement with the City of New York in 1975, sued the city for unpaid wages in Small Claims Court after five years of non-payment. The city sought dismissal, citing the plaintiff's failure to exhaust arbitration remedies and the indefinite suspension of payment due to ambiguities in the agreement. The court distinguished a prior Appellate Term reversal in Albert v City of New York by highlighting the union's bad faith in creating the ambiguous contract and its refusal to represent the plaintiff. The opinion emphasized that the city's delay was unconscionable and that its reliance on arbitration as a defense was procedurally improper. Ultimately, the court denied the city's motion and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.

Wage DeferralUnion Breach of Fiduciary DutyArbitration ExhaustionSummary JudgmentSmall Claims CourtContract AmbiguityUnpaid WagesDue ProcessCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. City of Buffalo

The United States moved to modify a 1979 remedial hiring decree against the City of Buffalo's police and fire departments. This decree, issued after findings of unlawful discrimination against blacks, Spanish-surnamed Americans, and women, required 50% of entry-level appointments to be from qualified minority applicants. The government argued that Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts mandated an end to preferential hiring. Chief Judge Curtin denied the motion, citing the Second Circuit's decision in EEOC v. Local 638, which held that Stotts does not prohibit race-conscious relief in this context. The court emphasized that the Buffalo decree is temporary, applies only to qualified candidates, and does not involve the displacement of existing employees, distinguishing it from the Stotts case. The hiring goals will end when the City proves its selection procedures are valid.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationAffirmative ActionHiring DecreeRemedial OrderTitle VIISeniority RightsJudicial ReviewConsent DecreePublic Employment
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 22,018 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