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. ADJ7352023 ADJ7351882 ADJ7552154
Regular
May 02, 2012

MARIA MALDONADO vs. LA ESPERANZA BAKERY, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This order denies Maria Maldonado's Petition for Removal from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, finding no basis to disturb the prior decision. Therefore, the petition to remove the case to the Board for further review is denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge ReportDenying RemovalADJ7352023ADJ7351882ADJ7552154Sacramento District OfficeLA ESPERANZA BAKERYCYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2015

Maldonado v. DiBre

Teodoro and Steven Maldonado, former owners of Nissan of Saratoga, LLC, appealed the dismissal of their second amended complaint against Alain and Patrick DiBre and their entities. The Maldonados had sold their dealership assets to the DiBres, maintaining a 20% ownership in the new LLCs and receiving a loan from a DiBre-owned entity, secured by their ownership units. After their employment termination and loan default, their units were sold, leading to a loss of standing for derivative claims. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the derivative claims lacked standing and the direct claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment were refuted by documentary evidence regarding at-will employment and discretionary payments. The cross-appeal was dismissed.

Breach of ContractFiduciary DutyDerivative ActionStandingEmployment At WillUnjust EnrichmentLimited Liability CompanyCorporate MismanagementFraudulent InducementAppellate Review
References
27
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04664 [197 AD3d 566]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2021

Matter of Maldonado v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

Fernando M. Maldonado appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied his CPLR article 78 petition. Maldonado sought review of determinations by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) concerning a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. His administrative appeal of the WCB's partial denial of documents was deemed untimely by the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that Maldonado failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. This failure arose from not appealing the WCB's initial FOIL determination within the 30-day period prescribed by Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (a).

Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)Administrative RemediesExhaustion of Administrative RemediesUntimely AppealWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Government TransparencyPublic Officers LawJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Maria A.

This case involves an appeal from an order of disposition by the Family Court, Kings County, dated April 19, 1979, which found appellant Maria to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her with the Division for Youth, Title III, for 18 months. Maria argued that her placement was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that less coercive alternatives were not considered. The delinquency finding stemmed from Maria's admission to acts constituting second-degree robbery and second-degree manslaughter. At the dispositional hearing, conflicting expert opinions were presented regarding the appropriate placement, with court-appointed experts favoring a more secure facility due to concerns about Maria's impulse control, while appellant's experts suggested an open residential setting. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding no basis for reversal after balancing the child's needs and community protection.

Juvenile DelinquencyFamily CourtOrder of DispositionPlacementDivision for YouthRobberyManslaughterPreponderance of EvidenceDispositional HearingResidential Facility
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado v. Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration

This case addresses whether a dismissed action, initially brought against a nonexistent entity with improper service, can be refiled against the intended defendant under CPLR 306-b (b). Plaintiff Maldonado was injured in 1992 and filed an action in 1995, naming "Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration" based on signage, and attempting service on a temporary worker. This first action was dismissed because the named entity did not exist and service was ineffective. Plaintiffs then filed a second action, correctly naming "Maryland Mass Transit Administration." The Supreme Court allowed the second action, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the first action was not timely commenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the resuscitative remedy of CPLR 306-b (b) is unavailable when the initial action failed to name an existing entity and lacked proper service, thus the first action was not "timely commenced" against the intended defendant.

Dismissed ActionNonexistent EntityImproper ServiceCPLR 306-b (b)Statute of LimitationsCommencement of ActionPersonal JurisdictionCure of DeficiencyAmendment of ComplaintAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 531672
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2021

Matter of Maldonado v. Doria, Inc.

Claimant Cesar Maldonado sustained a left ankle injury at work, which subsequently led to a causally-related pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Following further proceedings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board amended the claim to include major depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and cardiac arrest. The employer and its carrier appealed the inclusion of cardiac arrest, arguing a narrow definition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial medical evidence, including testimony from pulmonologists Nathan Rothman and Ali Eray Guy, supported the causal relationship between the cardiac arrest and the initial injury, rejecting the carrier's definitional arguments.

Ankle InjuryPulmonary EmbolismDeep Vein ThrombosisCardiac ArrestCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonySyncopal EpisodesOccupational Injury
References
8
Case No. CV-23-1577
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Miguel Maria Santos

Miguel Maria Santos, a pizza delivery person, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits. Santos alleged injuries from a fall off his electric bicycle on June 14, 2021, while working for 77 GP, Inc. However, 77 GP, Inc. and its carrier controverted the claim, asserting no employer-employee relationship existed at the time of the accident. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge credited the employer's testimony that Santos was discharged on June 2, 2021, for drinking on the job, prior to his injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, and the Appellate Division also affirmed, finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' compensationEmployer-employee relationshipSubstantial evidenceCredibility assessmentPizza deliveryDischarged employeeBicycle accidentAppellate reviewClaim denial
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08980
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2018

Matter of Ricci v. Maria Regina Residence

This case involves an appeal by the Special Disability Fund from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that the workers' compensation carrier for Maria Regina Residence was entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for a claim related to Cyndia Ricci's work-related knee injury, asserting Ricci had pre-existing heart and arthritis conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Ricci's preexisting conditions hindered her employment potential. The court concluded that the medical opinion relied upon was based on generalities and speculation, and that conditions controlled by medication do not, without more, constitute a hindrance to employability. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting ImpairmentEmployabilityMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityMedical OpinionOrthopedic SurgeonAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. 532851
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Maria Fierro-Switzer (William Switzer, Dec'd)

Claimant Maria Fierro-Switzer appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that disallowed her claim for death benefits. Her deceased spouse, William Switzer, a retired New York City firefighter, volunteered at Ground Zero after the September 2001 terrorist attacks and later died from metastatic kidney cancer. Claimant alleged that his death was caused by toxic exposure during his volunteer work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board disallowed the claim, finding that Article 8-A of the Workers' Compensation Law, which covers volunteers in World Trade Center rescue efforts, requires the participant to file a WTC-12 registration form during their lifetime. As the decedent did not file this form, the claim under Article 8-A was denied. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that despite the independence of a death benefits claim from the decedent's potential compensation claim, there must be a legal basis for the claim and an entity upon which liability may be imposed. Since the decedent was a volunteer at the time of exposure, no claim could lie under Workers' Compensation Law § 16, which requires injuries to arise out of and in the course of employment. The decedent's sole potential avenue for recovery would have been under Article 8-A, which was precluded by the failure to file the required WTC-12 form during his lifetime.

World Trade Center9/11 AttacksGround ZeroVolunteer BenefitsDeath Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law Article 8-AWTC-12 Registration FormToxic ExposureRenal Cell CarcinomaAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. 09 Cr. 339
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Guerrero

This opinion addresses motions filed by defendants Edwin Maldonado and Antonio Guerrero, seeking to set aside jury verdicts and obtain new trials after their June 7, 2010 convictions related to the Solid Gold drug organization. Maldonado's motion cited issues with witness testimony, government vouching, attacks on defense counsel, and the denial of recalling a witness. Guerrero's motion argued insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, improper admission of prior bad acts, and statute of limitations concerns regarding the predicate narcotics conspiracy. The court meticulously reviewed each of their arguments, finding no grounds for reversal or a new trial for either defendant. Ultimately, all motions by Maldonado and Guerrero were denied, affirming their convictions.

Criminal LawMurderNarcotics ConspiracyRacketeeringFed. R. Cr. P. 29Fed. R. Cr. P. 33Judgment of AcquittalNew Trial MotionSufficiency of EvidenceIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
71
Showing 1-10 of 620 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