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

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. ADJ8231938
Regular
Nov 07, 2016

MARIA RIVERA vs. ERA PRODUCTS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, SUSSEX INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns determining the correct date of injury for applicant Maria Rivera's cumulative injury claim. Defendant Sussex Insurance Company sought reconsideration of the administrative law judge's finding that the date of injury was February 17, 2012. Sussex argued for an earlier date, which would shift liability to a prior insurer, Star Insurance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding insufficient evidence that Rivera suffered wage loss or ratable permanent disability before February 17, 2012, as required by Labor Code section 5412. Therefore, Sussex remains liable for the claim.

Labor Code 5412Cumulative InjuryDate of InjuryDisabilityWage LossInsurance Guarantee AssociationReconsiderationFindings of FactOpinion and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
8
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. 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. 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
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02463 [204 AD3d 1185]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

Matter of Rivera (Northeast Logistics, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Northeast Logistics, Inc. (NEL) is a logistics company. Claimant Paul Rivera was engaged as a delivery driver for NEL and later applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor initially found Rivera to be an employee and NEL liable for contributions. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reversed this, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently reversed the ALJ's determination, sustaining the Department's findings. NEL appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence that NEL exercised sufficient control over Rivera to establish an employment relationship, despite evidence that might support a contrary conclusion.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorControl TestSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardDepartment of LaborDelivery DriverLogistics CompanyAdministrative Law Judge
References
10
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. Heyman

Plaintiff Amador Rivera, a security officer for the Smithsonian Institution, sued his employer and supervisors, Luis Palau and Edward Dolan, alleging discrimination based on his HIV status and subsequent retaliation. Rivera claimed violations under the Federal Rehabilitation Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and the Federal Tort Claims Act for invasion of privacy. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the Rehabilitation Act claims because the Smithsonian is not an executive branch entity covered by the Act. Title VII claims failed as disability discrimination is outside its scope, and state/local human rights claims were precluded by exclusive federal remedies. Finally, the court dismissed the invasion of privacy claim, declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims were resolved.

Rehabilitation ActTitle VIIEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationHIV StatusFederal EmployeesRetaliation ClaimJudgment on PleadingsJurisdictionSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
35
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
Showing 1-10 of 711 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