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
Oct 24, 2013

Rosario v. Local 1106 Transport Works of America

Plaintiff Louis Rosario sued his former employer, Transervice Lease Corporation, and his union, Transport Workers of America, Local 1106, alleging wrongful termination and inadequate union representation under the LMRA. Rosario's employment was terminated after he was accused of falsifying documents related to a vehicle repair. His union, Local 1106, failed to file for arbitration within the required 45-day period, leading an arbitrator to deem the grievance non-arbitrable in December 2010. Rosario filed his complaint in January 2013, more than two years after the arbitration denial. The Court granted Transervice's motion to dismiss, finding Rosario's hybrid § 301 LMRA claim time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations. The Court also dismissed the federal claim against Local 1106 sua sponte and declined supplemental jurisdiction over Rosario's state-law negligence claim against the union, dismissing it without prejudice.

Hybrid § 301 LMRAWrongful TerminationBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationEquitable EstoppelFederal JurisdictionState Law Claim
References
25
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04031 [240 AD3d 537]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2025

Rosario v. Horizon Networks, Inc.

Jose L. Rosario, an employee of Paragon Technology Group, Inc., suffered injuries after falling from an unsecured A-frame ladder while installing security cameras on property owned by Horizon Networks, Inc., and leased by Cara Mia Restaurant, Inc. Rosario and his wife filed a consolidated action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied Rosario's summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted Horizon's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, denying Horizon's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding triable issues of fact concerning the accident's cause and potential Labor Law violations. The court also affirmed the denial of common-law indemnification for Horizon against Paragon, citing unresolved factual issues regarding supervision.

A-frame ladderfall from heightLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(e)(3)summary judgmentcommon-law indemnificationtriable issues of factAppellate Divisionpremises liability
References
16
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rosario

Defendant Ana Rosario was indicted on charges of identity theft and grand larceny. She was accused of using her employer's and his girlfriend's bank accounts for unauthorized purchases and credit card payments while working as a home aide. A jury found her guilty on all counts. The defendant subsequently moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that the court's instruction to the jury on the definition of 'financial loss' was improper, particularly because the victims were reimbursed by their banks. The court denied the motion, ruling that 'financial loss' encompasses the value of what was taken, even if later reimbursed, and extends to losses incurred by financial institutions.

Identity TheftGrand LarcenyJury InstructionFinancial Loss DefinitionPenal LawCriminal Procedure LawMotion to Set Aside VerdictStatutory ConstructionLegislative IntentVictim Reimbursement
References
13
Case No. 75 Civ. 4632; 76 Civ. 3204
Regular Panel Decision

Rosario v. Dolgen

This memorandum opinion consolidates two actions brought by dissident union members, Raymond Cabel, Rosario, and Vega, against their union, Local 10, its former manager Abe Dolgen, and the parent union, ILGWU. The plaintiffs alleged various abridgments of their substantive and procedural rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), primarily stemming from union disciplinary actions including suspensions from membership meetings. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that the imposed suspensions were invalid as they impermissibly abridged federally guaranteed rights, and that the plaintiffs were denied a full and fair hearing. While claims against Dolgen in his private capacity and for malicious prosecution were dismissed, the court denied Local 10's motion to dismiss the retaliation claim under 29 U.S.C. § 529. The plaintiffs were also granted leave to file a supplemental complaint, with further issues such as damages and official capacity liability remaining for disposition.

Labour-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Union DisciplineFreedom of SpeechDue ProcessFair HearingIntra-Union RemediesPreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentFalse ArrestMalicious Prosecution
References
31
Case No. 534516
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Rosario Candela

Rosario Candela, a construction worker, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits due to lung cancer caused by asbestos and silica exposure. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, though the Board adjusted the date of disablement and found American Zurich Insurance liable. The employer and carrier appealed this decision. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board improperly applied Workers' Compensation Law § 44 by focusing solely on the date of disablement rather than the timing of the disease's contraction and the last employer in the employment that caused the disease. The case was remitted to the Board for a new determination consistent with the correct legal standard.

Occupational DiseaseLung CancerAsbestos ExposureSilica ExposureWorkers' Compensation Board AppealAppellate Division ReviewDate of Disablement DisputeEmployer's LiabilityCarrier's LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law Section 44
References
6
Case No. 10-CV-5255 (ERK)(LB)
Regular Panel Decision

Rosario v. Valentine Avenue Discount Store, Co.

Plaintiff Julian Rosario filed a collective action lawsuit against multiple discount stores and Raymond Srour, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff sought conditional certification of the collective action, production of potential opt-in plaintiffs' information, and authorization to circulate a notice of pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, granted the plaintiff's motion. The decision was based on a 'modest factual showing' that employees across several stores were subject to a common policy of wage and hour violations, despite initial concerns about the scope of the class and the definition of similarly situated employees. The court outlined specific modifications for the notice of pendency, including defining the class as 'non-managerial employees who performed work related to the receipt, stocking, or sale of merchandise, or general maintenance/cleaning of the store,' and also addressed the content and dissemination of the notice, and the production of employee information.

FLSANew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum WageCollective ActionConditional CertificationEmployee RightsEmployer LiabilityRetail Industry
References
26
Case No. 13-14-00242-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2014

Maria Del Rosario Cortinas v. Noe Lopez

Maria Del Rosario Cortinas sued Noe Lopez for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision. Lopez's insurer, Reinsurance Company of America (RCA), became insolvent, leading to the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) assuming Lopez's defense. The trial court dismissed Cortinas's suit as a death penalty discovery sanction due to her alleged failure to provide certain insurance declarations pages, explanation of benefits (EOB) forms, and a 'Release of Assignment of Lien.' Cortinas appealed, arguing that she exercised due diligence in attempting to comply with discovery orders and that the sanction was overly severe. The Court of Appeals found the sanctions unjust because Cortinas demonstrated good cause for her inability to produce some documents, made diligent efforts to obtain others, and the trial court failed to consider less stringent sanctions before dismissing the case. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle CollisionDiscovery SanctionsTexas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty ActImpaired InsurerMotion to CompelMotion to DismissAbuse of DiscretionExhaustion of BenefitsHospital Lien
References
16
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06039 [242 AD3d 677]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2025

Rosario v. Gentry Tenants Co-op

Plaintiff Fransico Rosario was injured while transporting a heavy hot water tank up stairs using a hand truck. He alleged that a co-worker released their handle, causing the tank to shift and momentarily pin him. However, other co-workers provided conflicting accounts, with some denying the incident or stating plaintiff only lost his footing, and one even claiming plaintiff offered money for favorable testimony. These discrepancies created issues of fact and credibility concerning whether the tank was properly secured, if gravitational forces caused the injury, and if plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding that triable issues remained.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawSafe Place to WorkConflicting Witness AccountsCredibility IssueGravitational ForceProximate CauseHand Truck AccidentWater TankAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,607 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