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. 2022 NY Slip Op 05144
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2022

Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.

This case involves an appeal regarding the summary judgment motions in a Labor Law action stemming from an electrical accident. Decedent Danny Rosa, an employee of June Electrical Corp., was electrocuted while working on an energized bus duct at a building managed by Bridgestreet Corporate Housing, LLC and owned by 47 East 34th Street (NY), L.P. and CIM Group, L.P. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division modified the orders, reinstating the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against 47 East 34th, CIM, and Bridgestreet, finding issues of fact regarding whether Rosa was compelled to work on an energized bus duct and the supervision of the work. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for June Electrical Corp. on indemnification and contribution claims, noting the failure to eliminate factual issues regarding grave injury.

Electrical AccidentLabor Law ClaimsSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyBuilding ConstructionElectrocutionAppellate ReviewDuty of CareCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code Violations
References
17
Case No. CV-23-1582
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Rosa Romero

Claimant, Rosa Romero, sustained work-related injuries in 2015, including to her right knee, head, neck, and back. She was classified with a permanent partial disability but initially denied awards due to a failure to demonstrate attachment to the labor market. Following a change in case law, claimant sought a Schedule Loss of Use (SLU) award for her right leg, supported by her treating physician's opinion of a 65% SLU. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board denied this request, citing prior findings and the absence of a prior SLU application. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, ruling that since no initial award was made based on the nonschedule classification, claimant is entitled to an SLU award for her permanent partial impairments. The case has been remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Schedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsWage-Earning CapacityLabor Market AttachmentRight Knee InjuryMedical ImprovementAppellate ReviewRemittalCase Law Change
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosa v. Astrue

Ludina Rosa sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision to deny her claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Rosa had a complex administrative history, including multiple SSI applications and a prior decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finding her disabled for a specific period but not for the period prior to October 1, 1986. The Commissioner moved to dismiss Rosa's complaint challenging the ALJ's pre-1986 disability finding. The court, presided over by a United States Magistrate Judge, reviewed the Commissioner's motion and found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial medical evidence, including findings from various doctors indicating Rosa's capacity for light work. Therefore, the Commissioner's motion to dismiss was granted.

Disability benefits appealSocial Security AdministrationSSI benefits denialFederal court reviewAdministrative Law Judge decisionResidual functional capacityMedical vocational guidelinesTreating physician rule exceptionSubstantial evidenceLight work capacity
References
20
Case No. 106 SSM 16
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

The Matter of Rosa Rizzo v. Thomas P. DiNapoli

Rosa Rizzo, a police officer, appealed a decision denying her accidental disability retirement benefits after she sustained a finger injury when a heavy metal door, known to slam automatically, was blown shut by a gust of wind. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that an injury resulting from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event is not an accidental injury, especially since Rizzo was aware of the door's tendency to slam. The court concluded that the known condition was a risk of the worksite but not the cause of a compensable accident under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. Judge Wilson dissented, arguing that the incident was an accident by common sense definition, criticizing the "reasonably anticipated" doctrine and the inconsistent application of the law, and calling for legislative action to clarify the statutory scheme for disability benefits.

Police OfficerAccidental Disability RetirementWorkplace InjuryGust of WindDefective DoorOrdinary Employment Risk"Unexpected Event" Doctrine"Reasonably Anticipated" StandardNew York Court of AppealsDissenting Opinion
References
40
Case No. ADJ13986633
Regular
Apr 12, 2023

ROSA JASSO vs. EDCO DISPOSAL CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

In *Jasso v. EDCO Disposal Corporation*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision finding applicant sustained a psyche injury. The WCAB rescinded the original findings due to the parties' subsequent filing of a fully executed Compromise and Release agreement. The matter was remanded to the administrative law judge to consider the settlement. This decision does not rule on the merits of the initial petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRosa JassoEdco Disposal CorporationTravelers Property Casualty Company of AmericaAdjudication NumberSan Diego District OfficeOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law Judgepsyche and nervous system injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ3995122 (OAK 0343980)
Regular
Aug 13, 2013

ROSA GOMEZ vs. NOB HILL FOODS, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal to address the exclusion of sub rosa films and investigator testimony. The trial judge had excluded this evidence because it was disclosed late and not shown to treating doctors. However, the Board found that the defendant properly disclosed the evidence and investigators at the mandatory settlement conference per Labor Code § 5502(d)(3). The admissibility of the sub rosa films and investigator testimony is now deferred to the trial judge.

Sub rosa filmsremovalmandatory settlement conferencedisclosureevidence exclusioninvestigative reportsLabor Code section 5502petition for removalpetition for reconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ6970581
Regular
Apr 23, 2012

DAVID ROSAS vs. CALIFORNIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed David Rosas' petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The petition was dismissed because it was unverified and lacked proof of service on the defendants, violating procedural requirements. Even if these defects were cured, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits. The WCJ previously found that Rosas did not sustain a compensable industrial injury and that his employer did not violate Labor Code section 132a.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceLabor Code Section 132aIndustrial InjuryWCJSignificant Panel DecisionSkeletal Petition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Motors Corporation—Delco Products Division v. Rosa

Clifford C. Briggs, an African-American, filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging racial discrimination after being terminated by General Motors Corporation. The Division found probable cause and, after hearings, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended reinstatement with back pay and damages. The Division's Adjudication Counsel proposed dismissing the complaint, but Commissioner Margarita Rosa, who had previously appeared as General Counsel for the Division in the hearings, adopted the ALJ's findings. General Motors challenged this order, arguing a denial of due process due to Commissioner Rosa's dual role and the ALJ exceeding authority. The Appellate Division confirmed the order, applying the Rule of Necessity. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Rule of Necessity was not strictly applicable as the Commissioner could have delegated the review to a subordinate. The case is remitted for review by an impartial arbiter.

Due ProcessAdministrative LawRule of NecessityJudicial IndependenceBiasCommissioner DisqualificationGeneral CounselRacial DiscriminationEmployment TerminationDelegation of Authority
References
14
Case No. ADJ9743291
Regular
Nov 06, 2018

CDWARD DE LA ROSA vs. ALL AREA PLUMBING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed applicant Edward De La Rosa's removal petition, finding the WCAB lacks jurisdiction over his claim. De La Rosa failed to timely dispute his claim denial through the mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, as required by his union's agreement. Specifically, he did not request a Qualified Medical Evaluator within the prescribed 30-day period after receiving notice of denial. This failure to follow the ADR procedures, including timely dispute resolution steps, bars the WCAB from adjudicating the merits of his injury claim.

RemovalLabor Code section 5301Petition for RemovalDue ProcessJurisdictionADR ProgramCertified RecordApplication for AdjudicationPetition to DismissQualified Medical Evaluator
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03216 [205 AD3d 527]
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2022

Rosa v. McAlpine Contr. Co.

Plaintiff appealed an order granting defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint based on a release of claims. The Appellate Division found issues of fact regarding whether defendants procured plaintiff's signature on a general release through fraud, duress, and/or overreaching. Plaintiff, who does not read English and was unrepresented by counsel at the time, averred he did not understand the document, believing it was a mere formality required for his receipt of compensation for work performed. Facing financial hardship, he signed the release for $30,000. The court modified the order, denying defendants' motions to dismiss and denying plaintiff's cross-motion without prejudice, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, remanding for further proceedings given the limited discovery.

fraudduressoverreachinggeneral releaseconstruction accidentladder fallworkers' compensation claimunrepresented partylanguage barrierfinancial hardship
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 162 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