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. 11-04-00172-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2006

Tomasa Rivera, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Raul Rivera, Isaiah Rivera Jolene Rivera Rangel Raul Rivera, Jr. And Erica J. Rivera v. Meister Industries, Inc. and Longhorn Custom Coating, Inc.

Appellants, the Riveras, sued appellees Meister Industries, Inc. and Longhorn Custom Coating, Inc. for gross negligence, alleging that Raul Rivera contracted silicosis and died due to exposure to dangerous levels of silica dust while working as a sandblaster. The jury found in favor of the Riveras, awarding $300,000 in exemplary damages. However, the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding no evidence of gross negligence. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The court concluded there was no legally sufficient evidence that Meister had an actual, subjective awareness of the extreme risk posed by silica dust exposure, a necessary element for gross negligence under Texas law, despite evidence of OSHA regulations and expert testimony on the hazards of silica.

SilicosisGross NegligenceEmployer LiabilitySilica Dust ExposureJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictOccupational DiseaseSandblastingWorkplace SafetyTexas Appeals CourtCausation
References
10
Case No. 13-20-00353-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2021

Juan Antonio Rivera and Luz Maria Rivera v. William McCaskill

William McCaskill obtained a no-answer default judgment against Juan Antonio Rivera and Luz Maria Rivera. The Riveras filed a petition for bill of review, arguing that McCaskill's error prevented them from receiving proper notice of the default judgment, as their correct mailing address was a P.O. box, not the home address used by McCaskill. They claimed they did not receive actual notice until after the initial deadline for a motion for new trial. The trial court denied the petition for bill of review, which the Riveras appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that despite any delay in notice, the Riveras received actual notice within an adequate time to pursue alternative legal remedies, but failed to exercise due diligence in perfecting their appeal.

Default JudgmentBill of ReviewDue ProcessLack of NoticeAppellate ProcedureTimeliness of AppealAbuse of DiscretionContract DisputeFraud AllegationsEquitable Relief
References
20
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. 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. 2008 NY Slip Op 28029
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2008

Matter of Noel O.

This juvenile delinquency proceeding involved Noel O., accused of sex offenses against five-year-old Jessi M. The presentment agency sought to have Jessi M. declared a "vulnerable witness" under Family Court Act § 343.1 (4) and Criminal Procedure Law § 65.20, requesting her testimony via live, two-way closed-circuit television. The court, presided over by Judge John M. Hunt, considered expert psychological testimony from Dr. Mitchell Frank and Dr. Elizabeth Osborn, which highlighted Jessi M.'s significant fear, nightmares, and potential for severe emotional harm if required to testify in Noel O.'s presence. Applying a 2007 amendment, the court found clear and convincing evidence that Jessi M. was a vulnerable child witness due to her young age, the heinous nature of the alleged acts, Noel O.'s familial relationship, and the expert's assessment of psychological harm. Consequently, the court granted the motion, allowing Jessi M. to testify via closed-circuit television to prevent further trauma and ensure her ability to communicate effectively.

Juvenile DelinquencyVulnerable WitnessClosed-Circuit TelevisionChild AbuseSex OffenseWitness CompetencyConfrontation ClauseFamily Court ActCriminal Procedure LawExpert Testimony
References
39
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. ADJ1982202
Regular
Mar 09, 2009

NOEL RIVERA vs. SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, INC., CHUBB FEDERAL INSURANCE, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a claim by Noel Rivera against Sensient Technologies Corporation. The Court of Appeal denied the employer's petition for writ of review and found no reasonable basis for it, remanding the case for supplemental attorney fees. A stipulation between the parties was reached whereby the defendant agreed to pay $3,500.00 for these supplemental attorney fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board approved this stipulation as reasonable.

Labor Code § 5801Supplemental Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewDenial of PetitionRemittiturStipulationLump SumT. Mae YoshidaMullen & FilippiWCAB
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 192 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