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 the Claim of Elkan-Moore

The case involves a claimant's appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled she was disqualified from receiving benefits due to voluntarily leaving her employment without good cause. The claimant, a museum director for five years, contended she resigned due to distress over allegations by a former Board of Trustees president and ongoing harassment from staff. However, the court found that issues with co-workers do not constitute good cause for leaving. An investigation had cleared the claimant of the allegations, and the Board was actively working to resolve the situation and retain her. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant left her job due to general dissatisfaction with work conditions.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary QuittingGood CauseJob DissatisfactionWorkplace HarassmentBoard of TrusteesEmployer-Employee RelationsAppellate ReviewBenefit DisqualificationClaimant Appeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Forbes

Claimant, a psychiatric social worker, was reclassified as an 'independent contractor' by Brooklyn Center for Families in Crisis, Inc. for the last six months of her employment, receiving an hourly rate. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the Center exercised sufficient direction and control over her work, establishing her status as an employee and thus her eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. Despite the re-designation, the claimant continued to treat the same patients in the same manner on the Center’s premises, worked under a supervisor, and the Center established the fees. The court affirmed the Board’s ruling, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant and similarly situated individuals were employees of the Center.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationPsychiatric Social WorkerEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardEmployee BenefitsEmployment StatusAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Seo v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

The claimant, a limousine driver for UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc., was injured in an automobile accident while driving home from work. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied benefits, ruling the injuries did not arise from employment. Eagle Insurance Company, the no-fault carrier, appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which initially reversed the WCLJ, deeming the claimant an 'outside worker' eligible for 'portal to portal' coverage. UTOG appealed this reversal, but the full Board rescinded the decision and referred it back. Upon reconsideration, the Board panel determined that Eagle lacked standing as it was not a party in interest under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and affirmed the WCLJ's denial of benefits. Eagle then appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the Board's decision, citing prior cases, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Automobile AccidentLimousine DriverWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStanding to AppealNo-Fault Insurance CarrierOutside WorkerPortal to Portal CoverageAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationRemittal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Augustine

This case involves an appeal by the Industrial Commissioner from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had ruled that the claimant, a full-time student at the University of Buffalo working as a janitor, was entitled to unemployment insurance credit. The claimant attended university from approximately 9:30 A.M. to 2:20 P.M. daily, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts degree to qualify for law school, and worked as a janitor from 4:30 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. five days a week. The central question was whether his janitorial work fell under the "Day student" exception in Labor Law § 511(9), which excludes certain part-time student employment from the definition of "employment" for unemployment insurance purposes. Citing precedents like *Matter of Renee (Gorsi)* and *Matter of Moslcowitz (Gorsi)*, the court concluded that the claimant's work fit the statutory exception, viewing it as a temporary job subordinate to his education rather than a permanent livelihood. Consequently, the court unanimously reversed the Appeal Board's decision and reinstated the Industrial Commissioner's initial determination.

Unemployment InsuranceStudent EmploymentLabor Law ExceptionPart-time WorkAppeal BoardJudicial ReviewEducational PursuitTemporary EmploymentStatutory InterpretationJanitor
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

In re the Claim of Culver

The claimant, a housekeeper at a residential apartment complex, was terminated after her supervisor received information that she was playing video games during working hours. Her initial application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied for misconduct, a determination upheld by an Administrative Law Judge. However, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed this decision, ruling that the claimant was entitled to benefits. The employer appealed the Board's ruling. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the question of disqualifying misconduct is a factual one for the Board to resolve and that substantial evidence supported the Board's choice to credit the claimant's testimony over the employer's witnesses.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductCredibilityAdministrative LawAppealTerminationHousekeeperVideo GamesWorking HoursSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Quinones

The claimant was terminated from his employment as a baker due to misconduct, specifically threatening a co-worker. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, a decision they adhered to upon reconsideration. The claimant appealed this ruling. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing that threatening a co-worker constitutes disqualifying misconduct and finding the Board's determination to be supported by substantial evidence. The court also noted that resolving issues of credibility was within the Board's purview.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductThreatening Co-workerDisqualificationAppealCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionBakerEmployment Termination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fortunato v. Workers' Compensation Board

The petitioner appealed two rulings: a Supreme Court judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 application to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to renew his license, and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. The Board had denied license renewal due to petitioner's failure to provide records, reapply, and demonstrate competency. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, ruling that the proceeding was time-barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations. Additionally, the court found that mandamus was not appropriate for a discretionary act and that the Board’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious.

License RenewalMandamusCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation BoardStatute of LimitationsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDiscretionary ActNonattorney Representative
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Bartenders Unlimited, Inc.

Bartenders Unlimited, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found its workers were employees for unemployment insurance contributions under Labor Law article 18. This contradicted an earlier Industrial Board of Appeals ruling that the workers were independent contractors for Labor Law articles 6 and 19. Bartenders argued collateral estoppel, but the Board rejected it, a stance affirmed by the court. The court reasoned that the term "employment" is not identically defined across all Labor Law statutes, allowing different administrative bodies to reach distinct conclusions on the mixed issue of law and fact, even with the same evidentiary facts. Therefore, collateral estoppel did not prevent the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board from reaching a different conclusion.

Unemployment InsuranceCollateral EstoppelIndependent ContractorsEmployeesLabor LawAdministrative LawAppealStatutory InterpretationMixed Question of Law and FactEvidentiary Facts
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Louchheim v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Petitioners appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which had denied their CPLR article 78 petition. The petition aimed to review a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton, dated October 20, 2005. The ZBA's determination had granted NL Housing, LLC, a variance for the enlargement of two structures that served as a labor camp for migrant workers, benefiting from a preexisting nonconforming use. The petitioners argued that this variance violated Southampton Code § 330-167 (B) (1) (a), also known as the 50% rule, which limits nonconforming use expansion to 50% of the floor area as measured from when the use first became nonconforming in 1957. The Appellate Court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, granted the petition, annulled the ZBA's determination, and denied the application for the variance, finding that the ZBA had incorrectly interpreted the zoning ordinance.

ZoningVarianceNonconforming UseMigrant HousingZoning Board of AppealsCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation50% RuleSuffolk County
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Palmer

The claimant, a resident supervisor at a homeless shelter, was discharged for allegedly violating a policy against excluding clients without approval. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially ruled in favor of the claimant, finding no disqualifying misconduct. After a rehearing ordered by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board due to an incomplete transcript, the ALJ again ruled for the claimant, a decision affirmed by the Board. The employer appealed, citing due process violations for denial of an adjournment and the incorporation of the initial hearing's transcript. The court rejected these claims, stating the employer waived its rights. Ultimately, the court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision that the claimant did not commit misconduct, as another employee was responsible for the client's exclusion, and thus affirmed the decision granting unemployment insurance benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployee MisconductDue ProcessAdministrative AppealWaiver of RightsCross-ExaminationHearing TranscriptCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceResident Supervisor
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 30,384 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