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

S.A.F. La Sala Corp. v. CNA Insurance Companies

Plaintiffs S.A.F. La Sala Corp. and La Sala Mason Corp. (collectively La Sala) obtained a comprehensive general liability policy from defendant Transcontinental Insurance Co., an affiliate of CNA Insurance Companies. The policy included a composite rate change endorsement establishing a minimum premium of $165,827. Following an audit, the earned premium was determined to be $107,336. Transcontinental refunded La Sala the difference between the estimated and minimum premiums, which was $55,275. La Sala initiated legal action, contending they were owed an additional $58,491, representing the difference between the estimated and earned premiums, and the motion court initially granted summary judgment in their favor. This appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, denying La Sala's motion for summary judgment and granting Transcontinental's cross-motion, ruling that the endorsement clearly mandated the retention of the minimum premium and did not violate New York Insurance Law.

Insurance LawContract InterpretationMinimum Premium ClauseSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentAppellate ReviewPolicy EndorsementEarned PremiumEstimated Premium
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re La Nova Pizzeria, Inc.

La Nova Pizzeria, Inc. appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which had assessed them for additional unemployment insurance contributions related to their delivery drivers. La Nova contended that the drivers were not employees. The court found that the Board’s decision lacked substantial evidence to prove an employment relationship, noting that drivers used their own vehicles, paid for food, and could work for other restaurants, indicating a lack of control by La Nova. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriversControl TestSubstantial EvidenceAppeal BoardReversalRemittalErie County
References
2
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Le Myre v. La Belle

This case involves appeals from two Workers’ Compensation Board decisions. The Board found that the claimant, a 15-year-old groom, suffered a disabling injury within the course of employment and established an employer-employee relationship with Stephen M. La Belle, owner of Steve Belle’s Racing Stable. La Belle contended the claimant was a volunteer, denying any payment. The Board, however, credited the claimant’s testimony regarding the nature of the work, payment, and La Belle's control, finding substantial evidence for an employer-employee relationship. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions.

Employer-Employee DisputeSubstantial Evidence ReviewCredibility AssessmentAppellate AffirmationMinor EmploymentEquine IndustryOccupational InjuryWage Non-Payment ClaimSaratoga CountyBoard Decision Appeal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romero v. La Revise Associates L.L.C.

Ruben Romero initiated a lawsuit against La Revise Associates, LLC, Jean Denoyer, and Regis Marnier, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Romero sought conditional approval for a collective action on behalf of tipped employees and kitchen staff, claiming underpayment of minimum wage, improper tip credit notices, excessive non-tipped duties, and wage manipulation. Defendants contested the motion, citing existing arbitration agreements with many employees. The court granted Romero's motion for conditional approval, ruling that the arbitrability of claims is a merits issue not relevant at this preliminary stage. The court also approved the proposed notice, limiting the look-back period for potential plaintiffs to three years as per FLSA, rather than the six years under NYLL.

FLSANYLLCollective ActionConditional CertificationTipped EmployeesMinimum WageTip CreditArbitration AgreementsWage and Hour DisputesEmployment Law
References
32
Case No. ADJ4447791 (SDO 0259860)
Regular
Sep 12, 2014

HARRY PIFER vs. LA MESA APPLIANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order that determined substantive rights. The Board also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Lastly, supplemental filings were rejected as not considered.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightLiabilityWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationSubstantial Prejudice
References
11
Case No. ADJ4447791 (SDO 0259860)
Regular
May 14, 2018

HARRY PIFER vs. LA MESA APPLIANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision. The Board affirmed the original decision but amended the findings of fact and award. Crucially, the Board clarified that the applicant did not sustain a psychiatric injury. However, temporary total disability was awarded for specific periods from February 12, 2004, to March 21, 2007, and from June 12, 2011, to November 12, 2014.

PiferLa Mesa ApplianceState Compensation Insurance FundADJ4447791ADJ813560Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardpsychiatric injurytemporary total disability
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04216
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of De La Cruz v. Aufiero Painting Indus. Inc.

Claimant Juan De La Cruz appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his claim for benefits due to an unwitnessed scaffolding accident. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling, which found the claimant's description of the accident inconsistent and therefore did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The Board also denied the claimant's request for full Board review as untimely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed both Board decisions, deferring to the Board's credibility determination and finding that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the untimely request for full Board review.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceScaffolding AccidentBack InjuryUntimely AppealBoard ReviewAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Cruz v. Chater

Pro se plaintiff Brígida De La Cruz challenged the Commissioner's denial of her application for disability benefits, alleging disability due to degenerative disc disease and arthritis. The Administrative Law Judge previously found that Ms. De La Cruz was not disabled and could return to her work as a sewing machine operator, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. In this federal action, the court reviewed extensive medical evidence from various treating and consultative physicians, including expert testimony from an orthopedist. The court ultimately found that the medical evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that Ms. De La Cruz retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work, despite her back condition. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, affirming the denial of disability benefits.

Disability BenefitsDegenerative Disc DiseaseChronic Back PainResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Social Security AdministrationMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudgment on the PleadingsPro Se Plaintiff
References
3
Case No. LAO 0781233, LAO 0781234
Regular
Aug 20, 2008

MICHAEL L. LA FRANCE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns Michael L. La France's workers' compensation claim against the County of Los Angeles. The Appeals Board denied La France's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) findings. The WCJ found La France lacked credibility and that his claims of psychiatric injury due to employment conditions were not supported by evidence, particularly noting he worked less than six months. Additionally, the WCJ found no violation of Labor Code Section 132a regarding termination and no compensable orthopedic or internal medicine injuries based on medical examiner reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilityGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Order Denying ReconsiderationLAO 0781233LAO 0781234Michael L. La FranceCounty of Los Angelesemployment application inaccuracies
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 281 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