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
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Enriquez v. Home Lawn Care & Landscaping, Inc.

The claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining an injury from falling off a ladder while working for Home Lawn Care and Landscaping, Inc. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined an employer-employee relationship existed and that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings and found Home Lawn Care had violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) due to an untimely notice of controversy. Home Lawn Care appealed. The appellate court agreed that the Board erred in finding a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) but upheld the Board's determination of an employer-employee relationship and that the injury arose from employment, thus modifying and affirming the Board's decisions.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryNotice of ControversySubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewLadder FallGutter Cleaning
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. 2017-05-0944
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2018

White, Carole v. Community Care of Rutherford Co.

Carole White filed a Petition for Benefit Determination seeking medical and temporary disability benefits, alleging a mental injury stemming from a hostile work environment. The Court initially found it unlikely that Ms. White would prevail on her claim. Community Care subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which Ms. White did not effectively oppose with supporting evidence. The Court ruled that Ms. White failed to provide proof of an identifiable stressful, work-related event producing a sudden mental stimulus, relying instead on a claim of gradual employment stress, which is not compensable under relevant law. Consequently, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Community Care, dismissing Ms. White's claim with prejudice.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentMental InjuryHostile Work EnvironmentCausationGradual StressProcedural HistoryBenefit DeterminationTennessee LawAppellate Procedure
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02696 [183 AD3d 983]
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2020

Matter of Zuniga v. Aliah Home Care Inc.

Zulma Zuniga, a home health care aide, filed a workers' compensation claim listing Aliah Home Care Inc. as her employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found Aliah to be Zuniga's employer and 100% liable for awards. Aliah later filed an application with the Workers' Compensation Board seeking review, asserting that Zuniga was actually employed by County Agency. The Board denied Aliah's application as untimely, as it was filed well beyond the 30-day window. Aliah's subsequent request for reconsideration was also denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the untimely application for review.

Workers' CompensationTimelinessApplication for ReviewAdministrative DiscretionEmployer LiabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityHome Health CareAppellate ReviewUntimely FilingBoard Decision
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06107 [243 AD3d 986]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

Matter of Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc. v. McDonald

The case involves Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc., a licensed home care services agency, challenging the Commissioner of Health's determination to revoke its license and impose a monetary penalty. The revocation stemmed from multiple deficiencies found during DOH surveys in 2019 and 2021, a substantiated patient complaint, and the agency's failure to comply with a temporary suspension order. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The Court also found the penalty, license revocation and a monetary fine, was not disproportionate or shocking to one's sense of fairness, considering the serious danger posed to vulnerable patients.

Home Care Services AgencyLicense RevocationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of HealthCPLR Article 78Monetary PenaltyTemporary Suspension OrderPatient Care Deficiencies
References
12
Case No. E2003-00432-WC-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Bryant v. BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM HOME CARE

Patricia Bryant, a home-health nursing assistant, suffered two work-related back injuries in 1997 while working for Baptist Health System Home Care of East Tennessee. After leaving employment, she filed for workers' compensation benefits. During a deposition in 1998, Bryant falsely testified she had not worked since leaving Baptist. Upon discovery, Baptist filed a counterclaim under the Workers’ Compensation Fraud Act. The trial court dismissed Baptist's counterclaim, finding no prejudice or fraudulent insurance act, and awarded Bryant 22.5% permanent partial disability benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the counterclaim, ruling that Baptist, as a self-insured employer, did not fit the 'insurer' definition under the Fraud Act, and affirmed the disability award, deferring to the trial court's credibility assessment of Bryant despite her false testimony.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse TestimonyPermanent Partial Disability BenefitsMedical Impairment RatingNeurosurgeon OpinionSelf-Insured Employer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate Court ReviewCredibility AssessmentBack Injury Claim
References
13
Case No. Docket No. 2015-05-0341, State File No. 69225-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Dugger, Paula v. Home Health Care of Middle Tennessee, LLC, et al.

Paula Dugger, a home health care nurse, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while returning home after abandoning a work trip due to inclement weather. She sought workers' compensation benefits, arguing her injuries arose from her employment. The trial court denied her claim, finding no exception to the 'going and coming' rule for injuries sustained during commutes. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed this decision, concluding that Dugger was not a 'traveling employee' and that the employer did not control the risks of her commute, thus her journey was not a compensated part of her service or a special errand.

Going and Coming RuleMotor Vehicle AccidentHome Health Care NurseScope of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSpecial Errand ExceptionTraveling Employee ExceptionEmployer Furnished TransportationInclement WeatherCausal Connection
References
18
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01170
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2023

Teshabaeva v. Family Home Care Servs. of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc.

Maktumma Teshabaeva and Jian Hua Deng, former home health aids, initiated a wage-and-hour class action against Family Home Care Services of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., alleging underpayment for 24-hour shifts and overtime. Defendants sought to compel arbitration based on a 2015 memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the plaintiffs' union, which established a mandatory alternative dispute resolution procedure. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to compel, ruling the MOA did not apply to plaintiffs who terminated employment before its effective date. After a federal court confirmed an arbitration interim award, defendants moved to renew their arbitration motion, which the Supreme Court denied, also granting plaintiffs legal fees for opposing the motion. Separately, the Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' answer due to persistent discovery non-compliance. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed both Supreme Court orders, finding the federal court's confirmation did not constitute new facts for renewal, and reiterated that lower federal court decisions are not binding precedent in state courts. The court also upheld the sanctions against defendants for frivolous conduct and their willful failure to comply with discovery demands.

Wage-and-hour disputeLabor Law claimsBreach of contractClass actionArbitrationAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Motion to renewDiscovery sanctionsFrivolous conductRes judicata
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 4,077 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