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
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04798
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2019

Matter of Mario WW. v. Kristin XX.

Mario WW. commenced a paternity proceeding seeking to be adjudicated the father of a child born to Kristin XX., who was married to Brad XX. The Family Court initially dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division remitted for a determination on the child's best interests regarding genetic testing. Upon remittal, the Family Court again dismissed the petition, applying the presumption of legitimacy and equitable estoppel, finding that genetic testing was not in the child's best interests. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, emphasizing the child's best interests, the stable family dynamic, and the presumption of legitimacy. The court also upheld a stay-away order of protection against Mario WW. due to his hostile behavior towards the respondents.

Paternity DisputeGenetic TestingBest Interests of ChildPresumption of LegitimacyEquitable EstoppelFamily Court Act Article 5Appellate DivisionOrder of ProtectionChild CustodyMarital Presumption
References
19
Case No. No. 115
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2017

The People v. Mario Arjune

The case concerns Mario Arjune's writ of error coram nobis, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Arjune, an immigrant with cognitive limitations, was convicted of tampering with evidence and weapon possession. His trial counsel filed a notice of appeal but took no further action, leading to its dismissal. Arjune claimed he was unaware of his appellate rights and entitlement to poor person relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, finding Arjune failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance or due diligence, and declined to broaden exceptions to appeal deadlines.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselRight to AppealCoram NobisAppellate ProcedurePoor Person ReliefCognitive LimitationsDeportation ConsequencesTrial Counsel DutiesNotice of AppealDue Diligence
References
20
Case No. CV-24-1603
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Mario Ayars

Claimant Mario Ayars appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding his right knee injury. The Board initially ruled an SLU award for a 20% SLU of the right leg, which was reversed and remitted by the Appellate Division due to an inaccurate assessment of medical opinions. Upon remittal, the Board again determined an SLU award was appropriate, specifically a 20% SLU for the right leg, and did not allow further submissions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying further record development, crediting Dr. DiBenedetto's opinion, and finding the 20% SLU award supported by Dr. Touliopoulos's November 2020 report regarding range of motion.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Knee InjuryMedical Opinion DiscrepancyAppellate Division ReviewRemittal DecisionSubstantial Evidence StandardRange of Motion AssessmentMaximum Medical ImprovementBoard's Discretion
References
6
Case No. 534723
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Justo Rios

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Justo Rios was injured at a construction site and sought benefits, naming Rockaway Contracting Corp. as his employer. Rockaway disputed this and, during its application for Workers' Compensation Board review, attempted to introduce new evidence via affidavits from personnel of another potential employer. The Board refused to consider the new evidence, citing Rockaway's failure to adequately explain why it was not presented earlier before the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ), and affirmed the WCLJ's decision holding Rockaway responsible. Rockaway appealed the denial of reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious conduct or abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider the belatedly submitted evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityEvidence AdmissibilityAppellate ReviewBoard ReviewReconsideration DenialAbuse of DiscretionTimeliness of EvidenceAffidavit SubmissionConstruction Accident
References
9
Case No. 534802
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Mario Ayars

Claimant Mario Ayars sustained a right knee injury in January 2017, leading to a workers' compensation claim where a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found a 66.67% schedule loss of use (SLU) of his right leg. Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) reduced the SLU to 20%, asserting that the physicians' opinions were inconsistent with impairment guidelines and based on inapplicable special considerations. On appeal, the Appellate Division found the Board's decision could not be sustained because its assessment of the medical evidence, specifically concerning Dr. Thomas DiBenedetto's independent medical examination (IME) report, was inaccurate. The Board erroneously claimed DiBenedetto found 110 degrees of flexion and applied special considerations, whereas his report documented 90 degrees of flexion and no such considerations. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, instructing the Board to accurately re-assess the medical evidence and determine anew the claim's amenability to classification or SLU, and the resulting degree of disability.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Knee InjuryMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemittalImpairment GuidelinesConflicting Medical OpinionsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Factual Questions
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Rios v. Rockaway Contr. Corp.

Claimant Justo Rios was injured in 2018 while working at a construction site and filed a workers' compensation claim, naming Rockaway Contracting Corp. as his employer. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found Rockaway to be the responsible employer. Rockaway sought review from the Workers' Compensation Board and attempted to introduce new evidence in the form of affidavits, but the Board refused to consider it, citing Rockaway's failure to provide a sufficient explanation for the late submission. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. Rockaway's subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial, finding no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider the new evidence.

Workers' Compensation ClaimEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardAdmissibility of EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousLate Evidence SubmissionConstruction Site InjuryProcedural Due Process
References
11
Case No. ADJ10155146
Regular
Aug 03, 2017

FIDEL RIOS (Deceased), MARIO RIOS, YESENIA RIOS vs. LAMONICA'S PIZZA DOUGH COMPANY, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied a petition for removal filed by the applicant. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm required for such an extraordinary remedy. Furthermore, the Board determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy should an adverse decision be issued later. The applicant can address discovery concerns with the WCJ during trial.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmadequate remedyAME reportsfurther discoverytrialADJ10155146Anaheim District Office
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2012

Rios v. Town of Huntington Housing Authority

Maritza Rios, a Section 8 housing participant, faced termination from the program after a felony assault conviction. An informal hearing officer initially ruled against termination, citing self-defense and her good character. However, the Town of Huntington Housing Authority (PHA) overturned this decision, claiming the hearing officer misapplied regulations and improperly considered mitigating circumstances. Rios sought a preliminary injunction in federal court, alleging due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 1983. The Court denied her motion, stating that the case was better suited for an Article 78 proceeding in state court and that Rios had received adequate pre-deprivation process. The Court expressed skepticism about the PHA's rationale but maintained that assessing the PHA's decision's validity was beyond its current role.

Section 8 HousingHousing Choice Voucher ProgramDue ProcessPreliminary InjunctionArticle 78 ProceedingPublic Housing AuthorityAdministrative LawFelony AssaultTermination of BenefitsConstitutional Law
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rios v. Altamont Farms, Inc.

The plaintiffs, migrant farm workers, sought to enforce a Puerto Rican default judgment against Altamont Farms, Inc., a New York apple grower. Altamont contended that the Puerto Rican court lacked personal jurisdiction. Justice Lawrence E. Kahn, presiding in New York, determined that Altamont's voluntary filing of a job offer through the Federal Interstate Clearance System, which was transmitted to Puerto Rico for labor recruitment, established sufficient minimum contacts. The court ruled that Altamont's actions satisfied Puerto Rico's long-arm statute and met due process standards, thereby subjecting it to Puerto Rican jurisdiction. Consequently, the New York court granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the judgment under full faith and credit principles and also ordered the consolidation of related cases.

Personal JurisdictionFull Faith and CreditLong-Arm StatuteMinimum ContactsDue ProcessWagner-Peyser ActMigrant Farm WorkersDefault Judgment EnforcementInterstate Clearance SystemJudicial Consolidation
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 153 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