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. ADJ8750277
Regular
Jun 26, 2013

RUTH SHAW vs. PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, SUTTER HEALTH

This case concerns a dispute over venue for a workers' compensation claim. The defendant objected to the initial venue in Anaheim, arguing it was improper as the applicant resided in Santa Cruz County and the injury occurred there. The Appeals Board found that both Felton (applicant's residence) and Santa Cruz (injury location) are within Santa Cruz County, which lacks a local Appeals Board office. Therefore, venue was properly changed to the Salinas district office, which is the nearest to the applicant's residence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code section 5501.5(c)Venue VerificationApplicant's ResidenceLocation of InjuryNearest Appeals Board OfficeSalinasSanta Cruz County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. McAneney

Patricia McAneney died intestate on September 11, 2001. Her brother, James E McAneney, filed a claim with the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. Patricia's domestic partner, Margaret Cruz, also sought compensation from the fund. The Fund increased the award by $253,454 to acknowledge Cruz's domestic partnership, intending this portion for her. However, the full award of $531,541.42 was distributed to James E McAneney, who refused to disburse any part to Cruz. Cruz then sued McAneney to compel disbursement based on constructive trust and unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court denied McAneney's motion to dismiss, and this appellate court affirmed that denial, ruling that New York law and federal legislation intended to compensate surviving domestic partners, making Cruz's claims viable and McAneney's actions inconsistent with good faith.

September 11th Victim Compensation FundDomestic PartnershipConstructive TrustUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewEstate DistributionFiduciary DutyStatutory InterpretationEquitable Remedies
References
14
Case No. ADJ460520 (SAL 0101308)
Regular
Feb 22, 2010

Joaquin Borges vs. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse a finding that applicant Joaquin Borges sustained a cumulative trauma injury from asbestos exposure while employed by the County of Santa Cruz in 1989, resulting in colorectal cancer. The Board found insufficient substantial medical evidence to establish causation, noting Dr. Duncan's opinion relied on an inaccurate exposure history and lacked a clear dose-response analysis for non-asbestos worker exposure. The matter is returned to the trial level to determine if applicant is entitled to a presumption of injury under Labor Code section 3212.1.

Cumulative traumaAsbestos exposureColorectal cancerIndustrial injuryMedical probabilityExposure assessmentLatency periodDose-response relationshipPeace officer presumptionLabor Code section 3212.1
References
0
Case No. ADJ2668495 (SAL 0120174) ADJ1907387 (SAL 0120175) ADJ8804047
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

ORESTE (RUSTY) LOCATELLI vs. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, OCTAGON RISK SERVICES

This order denies the applicant's petition for reconsideration in a workers' compensation case against the County of Santa Cruz and Octagon Risk Services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration is formally denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportdeny reconsiderationLocatelli v. County of Santa CruzOctagon Risk ServicesADJ2668495ADJ1907387ADJ8804047administrative law judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Liberatore

Plaintiff Victor Cruz, a Puerto Rican police officer, filed suit against Louis Liberatore, Thomas Belfiore, the WCPD, and Westchester County, alleging claims including hostile work environment, failure to train and supervise, and retaliation. Cruz claimed Inspector Liberatore made discriminatory remarks, humiliated him, and physically assaulted him. After filing an EEOC complaint and an internal investigation, Cruz was transferred, which he asserted was retaliatory. The court partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, allowing some hostile work environment and retaliation claims to proceed while dismissing others, including those against Liberatore in his official capacity and the Title VII hostile work environment claim against the WCPD/County.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment DiscriminationSection 1983Title VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentPolice MisconductEthnic DiscriminationWorkplace Harassment
References
53
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05943 [120 AD3d 744]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2014

Cruz v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

Ricardo Enrique Cruz, an appellant-respondent, sued Cablevision Systems Corporation, JQ II Associates, LLC, and CSC Holdings, Inc. for personal injuries sustained from a 40-foot fall while working on a roof. Cruz alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified a Supreme Court order. It granted Cruz's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against all defendants. It also granted portions of the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims against JQ II Associates, LLC and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim entirely. However, it denied the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Cablevision and CSC. The order was affirmed as modified.

Personal InjuryLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyElevation-Related RiskFall from HeightNondelegable DutyIndustrial Code
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Regent Leasing Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2001

Adams v. Santa Fe Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, order denying the Santa Fe defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars was unanimously affirmed. The denial of summary judgment was due to unresolved questions of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was a special employee of the Santa Fe defendants, thus precluding the application of the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity rule. Evidence suggested shared supervision and control over the construction site between the Santa Fe defendants and the plaintiff's general employer. The court also found that the supplemental bill of particulars merely amplified existing allegations under Labor Law § 241 (6) by citing specific Industrial Code chapter headings, and did not introduce new theories of liability, thus affirming its grant.

special employeeWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Lawsummary judgmentbill of particularsIndustrial Codeshared supervisionconstruction siteappellate affirmance
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01739
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

Cruz v. Miller UK Ltd.

This action concerns an accident at LaGuardia Airport where plaintiff Angel Cruz, a construction worker, was struck by an excavator bucket. Cruz initiated a lawsuit against various entities, including Miller UK Ltd., Miller International Ltd., and Miller International Holdings Limited (the Miller defendants). The Supreme Court initially denied the Miller defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, subsequently reversed this decision, granting the motion to dismiss against Miller UK Ltd. and Miller International Ltd. The court cited a prior related case, Cruz v City of New York, and applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to determine that there was no personal jurisdiction over these two entities.

Personal jurisdictionCollateral estoppelMotion to dismissConstruction accidentAppellate reviewCorporate liabilityProcedural lawJurisdictional challengeInter-county transferCPLR 3211 (a) (8)
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02981
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2021

Cruz v. National Convention Servs., LLC

Plaintiff David Cruz appealed a Supreme Court order that granted summary judgment to defendant National Convention Services, LLC, dismissing his complaint for injuries sustained at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in 2015. Cruz, an employee of NYCCOC, alleged negligence by Vincent Torres and Anthony Scura, general employees of NYCCOC, claiming they were special employees of National, thereby making National liable. The Supreme Court ruled his claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy doctrine, finding Torres and Scura were not National's special employees. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that National did not supervise or direct the carpenters' work, and NYCCOC remained responsible for their wages, assignments, and on-site supervision. Therefore, the court found, as a matter of law, that Torres and Scura were not special employees of National Convention Services, LLC.

Summary judgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive remedy doctrineSpecial employee doctrineAppellate reviewPersonal injuryNegligenceJavits CenterEmployer liabilityVicarious liability
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 417 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