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

In re Harmon Funeral Home, Inc.

Judge Mikoll dissents from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an employer-employee relationship between Harmon Funeral Home, Inc. and its pallbearers. The dissent argues that there is not substantial evidence to support this conclusion, citing a lack of control and direction by the funeral home over the pallbearers. Pallbearers are sourced from a livery service, not instructed by the funeral home, and receive no employee benefits. Although a union agreement designated pallbearers as employees, the dissent states this factor alone should not be determinative given the overall circumstances indicating an independent contractor relationship. The dissent concludes that the Board's decision should be reversed.

Employer-employee relationshipPallbearersIndependent contractorWorkers' compensationUnion agreementControl and directionLivery serviceDissentFuneral homeLabor law
References
1
Case No. ADJ8212306
Regular
Oct 22, 2013

BELEN DOMINGUEZ vs. DEPARTMENT OF IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, Legally Uninsured, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Belen Dominguez against the Department of In-Home Supportive Services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has denied this petition. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the Petition for Removal is dismissed.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportDeny removalLegally UninsuredYORK INSURANCE SERVICESIn-Home Supportive ServicesADJ8212306San Jose District OfficeAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyek v. Field Support Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Audra Hyek initiated an action against her former employer, Field Support Services, Inc. (FSSI), alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). FSSI moved for summary judgment, which the court reviewed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court found that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, specifically regarding disparate treatment in equipment, training, policy enforcement, or her termination compared to a male co-worker. Additionally, Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim was deemed abandoned due to her failure to address Defendant's arguments in opposition papers. Consequently, the court granted FSSI's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTitle VIINYSHRLSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentHostile Work EnvironmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretext
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Critical Care Support Services, Inc.

This case addresses a motion filed by Critical Care Support Services, Inc. (the Debtor) seeking to expunge a $7,011,990.39 claim by the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) concerning federal withholding and FICA taxes for 1987-1988. The central dispute revolved around whether the nurses supplied by the Debtor were employees or independent contractors during this period. The Debtor, which took over operations from Criticare and reclassified nurses from employees to independent contractors without timely filing required tax forms, argued for expungement. The court, applying the common law test for employee status and considering factors like control, payment, and the nature of the business, determined that the nurses were indeed employees. As a result, the court denied the Debtor's motion and upheld the IRS's claim.

Employee ClassificationIndependent ContractorTax LiabilityIRS ClaimBankruptcy CourtSuccessor in InterestEmployment TaxesFICA TaxesWithholding TaxesCommon Law Test
References
13
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08737
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2018

NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. Recco Home Care Servs., Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Albany County. Plaintiff NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust, a self-insured trust providing workers' compensation coverage, sued defendant Recco Home Care Services, Inc. for unpaid adjustments after the defendant terminated its membership. Following an amendment to the complaint adding individual trustees as plaintiffs, the defendant asserted counterclaims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence against these trustees, which the Supreme Court dismissed as time-barred. The defendant also sought to amend its answer to include a counterclaim under General Business Law, which was denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the counterclaims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty and in denying the cross-motion to amend for the General Business Law claim. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reversing parts of the dismissal and denial, and affirmed the order as modified.

Workers' Compensation CoverageSelf-Insurance TrustFraud AllegationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyGeneral Business LawStatute of LimitationsAmended PleadingsCounterclaimsAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene County Department of Social Services v. Ward

This is a concurring opinion by Chief Judge Kaye regarding a case involving Ms. Ward and the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). Ms. Ward, facing challenges with her son Jeffrey's severe behavioral issues and a lack of support services, was coerced into permanently relinquishing her parental rights to GCDSS after they refused a temporary relinquishment and failed to provide adequate assistance. She subsequently challenged a child support order, citing statutory exceptions and equitable estoppel due to GCDSS's alleged failures in providing information on parental support obligations and mandatory preventive services. While the court affirmed the original support order, Chief Judge Kaye's opinion highlights the GCDSS's apparent non-compliance with regulatory mandates, including the failure to inform parents of support obligations, conduct a 'best interests' analysis, and refer to essential preventive and emergency mental health services, stressing that such a situation should not recur. However, the requested remedy of estoppel against the agency could not be granted.

Parental RightsChild SupportSocial Services AgencyEquitable EstoppelRegulatory CompliancePreventive ServicesChild WelfareGreene CountyConcurring OpinionFamily Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamsbridge Manor Nursing Home v. Local 144 Division of 1199, National Health & Human Services Employers Union

Plaintiff Williamsbridge Manor Nursing Home sought to permanently enjoin an arbitration hearing related to the suspension of its employee, Cynthia Sullivan. The defendant, New York’s Health & Human Services Employers Union 1199/SEIU, AFL-CIO, opposed this motion and cross-moved for summary judgment and/or dismissal. The core issue revolved around whether an obligation to arbitrate survived the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in October 1997, given that the incident leading to Sullivan's suspension occurred in December 1998. The court determined that the dispute did not arise under the expired CBA, nor was there an implied-in-fact agreement to arbitrate post-expiration disputes, as the plaintiff's conduct was inconsistent with implied consent. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff's petition was not moot, despite the arbitration having already taken place, because the court retains power to act until an arbitration award is confirmed. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to permanently enjoin the arbitration was granted, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss for mootness was denied.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCBA ExpirationImplied-in-fact ContractFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActPermanent InjunctionMootnessEmployee SuspensionJudicial Determination
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State ex rel. Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children

Maureen M. Dunn filed a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of "Baby Girl" Dunn, born April 6, 1986, after executing a surrender for adoption to Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children (CHB) on May 1, 1986. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents, John and Mary Doe, on April 10, 1986. Dunn attempted to revoke her surrender on May 21, 1986, within the 30-day period stipulated by Social Services Law § 384(5). The adoptive parents moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing against Supreme Court jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction and, following hearings, addressed Dunn's claims of fraud, duress, or coercion in the surrender's execution, which it ultimately denied despite concerns about CHB's procedures and a witness's credibility. The court also clarified the application of Social Services Law §§ 383(6) and 384(5) regarding the natural mother's rights post-surrender, ruling that Dunn lost her presumption of superiority once the child was placed in an adoptive home, requiring the custody determination to be based solely on the child's best interests. Considering the stability, financial security, and family ties of the adoptive parents versus the natural mother's temporary employment, uncertain support from the natural father, and past substance use during pregnancy, the court found it in the child's best interest to remain with the adoptive parents and be adopted by them.

AdoptionChild CustodyHabeas CorpusSurrender of Parental RightsBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsSocial Services LawRevocation of SurrenderFraudDuress
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stratus Services Group, Inc. v. Kash 'N Gold, Ltd.

An employment agency, Stratus Services Group, Inc., failed to conduct required background checks for temporary workers provided to Kash ’N Gold, Ltd. (KNG). Following a burglary at KNG's warehouse by three of these workers, KNG's insurer, American Home Assurance Company, compensated KNG for its losses. American Home, as subrogee, then sued Stratus for breach of contract. Initially, the Supreme Court found a breach but no proximate cause for the damages. However, an appellate court reversed this decision, determining that Stratus's breach was indeed a proximate cause of the damages, and awarded American Home judgment of $241,251.71 against Stratus.

Breach of contractProximate causationSubrogation claimEmployment agency liabilityFailure to conduct background checksWarehouse burglaryInsurance claimAppellate reversalContractual damagesNew York law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 12,765 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