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

Patricia v. Delford Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Carrie Patricia brought an action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act against her former employer, Delford Industries, Inc., and her bargaining representatives, Local 546 and the International Union. Patricia alleged wrongful termination by Delford and a breach of the duty of fair representation by the unions for their handling of her grievance. The court considered motions for summary judgment from all parties and Patricia's motion to amend her complaint. The motions for summary judgment by Local 546, Delford, and Patricia were denied. The International Union's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Patricia's motion to amend her complaint was also granted.

Labor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Civil ProcedureRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelUnemployment Benefits Claim
References
15
Case No. CA 12-00576
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2012

JOHNSON, JOSHUA v. DEL VALLE, JORGE

Plaintiff Joshua Johnson sought damages for injuries sustained at work when co-employee Jorge Del Valle allegedly threw a baseball, striking Johnson's face. Del Valle moved for summary judgment, arguing workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed the order, denied the motion, and reinstated the complaint. The court found that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether Del Valle's actions were within the scope of his employment, thereby challenging the applicability of the workers' compensation exclusivity provision.

Personal InjuryCo-employee LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of FactNegligenceWorkplace InjuryNew York Law
References
6
Case No. CA 11-00560
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2011

DEROSA, PATRICIA v. DYSTER, PAUL

Patricia DeRosa, a retired employee of the City of Niagara Falls, commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking post-employment health insurance coverage or opt-out payments. The Supreme Court partially granted her petition against the City. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, concluding that the petitioner was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before commencing the proceeding, as she was not an "employee" when she became aggrieved and thus no grievance procedure was available under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). However, the court found that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) permitted only qualified *employees* to opt out of the health care plan, not retirees. Therefore, the judgment was modified to dismiss the part of the petition seeking to compel opt-out payments from the City, while affirming the part that entitled her to enroll in the health care plan at no cost. A dissenting opinion argued that the petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, and the petition should have been dismissed in its entirety.

CPLR Article 78Health InsuranceOpt-out PaymentsCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesRetiree BenefitsExhaustion of RemediesAppellate ReviewMunicipal LawLabor Law
References
23
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07685 [189 AD3d 594]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Valle v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

Thomas W. Valle, a general foreman, was injured when a stack of cement boards fell on him from a City Lumber truck after the wooden skids underneath broke during unloading at a work site managed by Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Turner Construction Corp. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment as to liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied defendants' motions regarding Labor Law § 200 and City Lumber's indemnification claims. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding issues of fact regarding proximate causation and the adequacy of safety devices. The court also granted City Lumber's motion to dismiss the third-party contractual indemnification claim due to a lack of contract, while otherwise affirming the denial of dismissal for common-law indemnification and contribution. Issues of fact remain for trial concerning liability under Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1), and common-law claims.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityFalling ObjectProximate CauseContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionThird-Party Claims
References
22
Case No. 532689
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Monica Patricia Hidalgo Bernal (Poncefarfan, (dec'd) Otto)

Monica Patricia Hidalgo Bernal filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits after her spouse, a cab driver, was fatally stabbed while dispatched by New York Apple Car Service (NYACS). NYACS, a member of the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF), controverted the claim, contending the decedent was a black car operator, thus making the New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF) liable. The Workers' Compensation Board found the decedent to be an independent livery driver, holding NYACS and its ILDBF carrier responsible. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, referencing Matter of Cisnero v Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund, and reiterated that the vehicle's affiliation with NYBCOICF does not negate liability when the dispatch originated from an independent livery base.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsIndependent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF)New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF)Livery DriverBlack Car OperatorStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioner of Department of Social Services v. Dixon

Patricia Dixon appealed a Family Court order that found her children, Michael, Patricia, and Diana, neglected and continued their custody with the Onondaga County Department of Social Services (DSS). The neglect finding stemmed from Dixon's severe alcohol addiction, which led to her inability to provide proper supervision and care for her children. The case detailed a history of neglect adjudications and removals of her children, including Diana, who required specific health attention. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the Family Court's determination, concluding that the evidence of Dixon's continued alcohol abuse justified the finding of neglect under the Family Court Act. The court noted Dixon's right to reapply to Family Court upon demonstrating a substantial change in her conduct.

Child NeglectAlcohol AddictionParental CustodyFamily CourtAppellate DecisionSocial Services InterventionChild WelfareSupervision StandardsGuardianshipFact-Finding Order
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 1984

Patricia L. v. Steven L.

This case involves an appeal challenging the Family Court's decision to compel a mother, Patricia L., to proceed pro se in a custody hearing after her lawyer failed to appear. The dispute originated from a divorce action between Patricia L. and Steven L., where both sought custody of their children. Despite the mother's protests and information that her lawyer was en route, the court proceeded with the hearing, leading to the mother's inability to effectively present her case. The Family Court subsequently awarded temporary and then permanent custody to the father, Steven L. The appellate court found that the mother was deprived of her fundamental right to counsel, which compromised her ability to ensure due process and protect the best interests of the children. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's order and remitted the matter for a new hearing.

Right to counselCustody hearingPro se representationAdjournment denialParental rightsFamily Court procedureAppellate reviewAbuse of discretionDue processEffective assistance of counsel
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Neal v. Riverside Service

The case involves Patricia (Sommers) Neal claiming benefits as the legal widow of Robert Neal, who died in a work-related truck accident. Her claim was disallowed by the Workers’ Compensation Board on the grounds that her marriage to Robert Neal was not legal, as it occurred prior to the finalization of Robert Neal's previous divorce in New York. The court found that the Board erred by failing to consider Pennsylvania law, where the marriage took place, particularly a statute that validates marriages entered in good faith after the removal of a prior impediment, provided the parties continue to live together as husband and wife. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case for a determination consistent with the application of Pennsylvania law, specifically regarding Patricia Neal's good faith belief in the termination of the prior marriage or the validity of a common-law marriage under Pennsylvania law.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsMarital StatusConflict of LawsPennsylvania LawNew York LawGood Faith MarriageInterlocutory DivorceRemandSpousal BenefitsLegal Widow
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 1998

Cabri v. Park

In a personal injury action, defendant Patricia Shevlin appealed from an order dated April 29, 1998, which, upon reargument, denied her motion for summary judgment. The appellate court reversed the order, reinstated the prior order from February 18, 1998, which granted summary judgment to Patricia Shevlin, and dismissed the complaint and all cross claims against her. Additionally, upon searching the record, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment for defendant Myung-Soo Park, reinstating the February 18, 1998, order that granted his cross motion and dismissed the complaint and all cross claims against him. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102, as the medical reports lacked objective tests and explanations for treatment gaps, and a prior report was not recent. Consequently, the derivative cause of action for the injured plaintiff's wife was also dismissed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSerious Injury ThresholdAutomobile AccidentMedical EvidenceObjective Medical TestsSpinal DerangementRotator Cuff InjuryAppellate ReviewBurden of Proof
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John R. v. State of New York Office of Children and Family Services

Petitioners Patricia R. and John R. were 'indicated' for child maltreatment after their children had continued contact with an uncle who had sexually abused their oldest daughter. Despite being explicitly instructed by a child protective services caseworker to prevent any contact, the children reported seeing and greeting the uncle. Patricia R. even sent the youngest child to the uncle's apartment. The petitioners challenged this determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, requesting the report be amended to unfounded. However, the court confirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence that the children's physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or in imminent danger due to the petitioners' failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in supervision.

Child MaltreatmentChild AbuseSexual AbuseParental NeglectFailure to SuperviseCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFamily LawChild Protection
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 186 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