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

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.

The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, acting as a governmental agency and successor in interest to several insolvent workers' compensation self-insured trusts, commenced an action against a third-party administrator (Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.), its employees, related corporate entities, insurance brokers (including Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc.), former trustees of one of the trusts (RITNY), and an actuarial firm (Regnier Consulting Group, Inc.). The plaintiff alleged misconduct and malfeasance by the defendants led to trust insolvencies and sought to recover accumulated deficits. The case involves cross appeals challenging the Supreme Court’s partial dismissal of the complaint, specifically concerning the timeliness of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and common-law indemnification, applying the repudiation and discovery rules for statute of limitations. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by dismissing specific claims against Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc., broadening the temporal scope of breach of fiduciary duty claims against other defendants, and reinstating common-law indemnification claims against several RITNY trustees, affirming the order as modified and remitting the case.

Workers' CompensationBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractCommon-Law IndemnificationStatute of LimitationsRepudiation RuleDiscovery RuleTrust Insolvency
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1990

Claim of Weingarten v. XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc.

This case addresses whether a claimant, a shareholder and participating limousine driver for XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc., qualifies as an employee eligible for workers' compensation benefits. The corporation, which provides dispatch services, requires drivers to purchase shares and own their limousines, covering personal expenses. While drivers have flexible hours, they are obligated to accept "voucher fares" assigned by the corporation, with penalties for refusal, and the corporation manages these payments. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found no employer-employee relationship, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding an employer-employee relationship existed due to the corporation's significant control over the voucher fare system and the claimant's dependence on the corporation for business. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding sufficient evidence of control to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship.

employer-employee relationshipworkers' compensationlimousine driverindependent contractorcontrol testshareholderdispatch servicesvoucher faresadministrative appealNew York
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Najarro v. Summit Security Services, Inc.

In 1985, an 18-year-old plaintiff was critically injured while employed by A&P, necessitating lifelong institutional care. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled A&P responsible for plaintiff's wages, but the New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) mistakenly paid for his medical care from 1987 to 1996. A dispute arose regarding whether A&P's waiver of an 'existing' workers' compensation lien included these past medical bills after a $1 million settlement with defendant Summit Security Services. The IAS Court initially ordered A&P's administrator, Crawford & Co., to pay Beth Abraham Health Services $779,325 for past services, with Beth Abraham then reimbursing DSS. The appellate court reversed this order, vacating it and remanding the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing to determine the exact amount of the DSS Medicaid lien against A&P/Crawford. The court also ruled that medical providers should not be involved in reimbursing DSS, and any further compensation claims by Beth Abraham against A&P/Crawford, beyond the Medicaid rate, must be determined by the Workers' Compensation Board in accordance with the Workers' Compensation Law.

Medicaid ReimbursementLien WaiverJurisdictionAppellate ReviewSettlement Agreement InterpretationMedical BenefitsEmployer ResponsibilityInsurance AdministratorThird-Party DefendantStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Rivera v. Superior Laundry Services, LLC

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning an employer's workers' compensation policy. The claimant, initially employed by Brand Management Services, Inc. (BMS) doing business as County Agency, Inc., was injured while working for Superior Laundry Services, LLC. Guarantee Insurance Company, BMS's carrier, disputed the claim, asserting the policy did not cover Superior Laundry's direct employees and had been canceled. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed that the policy was not properly canceled due to insufficient notice. The Appellate Court reversed this decision, agreeing that cancellation notice was improper but concluding that the policy fundamentally did not provide coverage for Superior Laundry Services, LLC at the time of the claimant's accident.

Workers' CompensationInsurance PolicyPolicy CancellationCoverage DisputeProfessional Employer OrganizationAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityCarrier ResponsibilityAdditional Insured EndorsementNotice Requirements
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aminov v. New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund, Inc.

Claimant, a black car operator for the New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund, Inc., sustained injuries when his limousine was struck by another vehicle. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that his injuries were compensable, having occurred while performing 'covered services.' The employer and the State Insurance Fund appealed, contending that without a specific assignment, claimant was not performing covered services. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that logging onto the employer's website and driving to an area with high fare activity to increase chances of an assignment was sufficient to constitute performing covered services under Executive Law § 160-cc (4).

Black Car OperatorAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentCovered ServicesDispatch InterpretationLog-on ActivityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityInsurance Fund
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Specialty Services, Inc.

Claimant, a construction foreman for Specialty Services, Inc., was injured while performing work for a church in Pennsylvania. Although Specialty filed a work-related accident report and its carrier began paying benefits, the carrier filed a notice of controversy over seven months after the Workers' Compensation Board indexed the case, exceeding the 25-day limit. The carrier argued that the late filing was due to surprise, mistake, and newly discovered evidence regarding the church's involvement, which claimant and Specialty allegedly failed to disclose. The Workers' Compensation Board refused to excuse the late filing, finding the carrier failed to demonstrate good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the carrier had ample time to investigate and that belatedly obtained evidence is not a sufficient ground to excuse a late filing.

Workers' CompensationLate Notice of ControversyTimely FilingEmployer-Employee RelationshipInsurance CarrierGood CausePleading BarAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arteaga v. ISS Quality Service

Claimant, a maintenance worker hired to replace striking employees of ISS Quality Service, was assaulted and sustained injuries. A dispute arose regarding whether claimant was an employee of ISS or Contemporary Graphics Group (CGG), a temporary staffing agency. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found claimant solely employed by CGG, but the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, concluding claimant was a general employee of CGG and a special employee of ISS, apportioning liability equally. ISS and its carrier appealed the special employment designation as irrational, but the Board's decision was affirmed.

Employer-Employee RelationshipSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentWorkers' Compensation LiabilityApportionment of LiabilityTemporary Staffing AgencyAssault in EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceBoard Decision ReviewJudicial Review
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02591 [204 AD3d 1258]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

Matter of Abad v. Vanety's Serv., LLC

Juan Abad, a claimant, was injured while working as a warehouse attendant for ACME Furniture, having been placed there by Vanety's Service, LLC, a staffing agency. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found Vanety's Service, LLC, 100% liable for workers' compensation benefits. Upon appeal by Vanety, the Workers' Compensation Board modified the decision, establishing a general/special employment relationship between Vanety's Service, LLC (general employer) and ACME Furniture (special employer), and apportioned liability equally (50/50) between them. ACME Furniture and its carrier appealed this apportionment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to disturb the apportionment and rejecting the carrier's due process claims.

Workers' CompensationGeneral/Special EmploymentLiability ApportionmentStaffing AgencyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEmployer LiabilityInjuryLadder FallNew York Law
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02599 [171 AD3d 1277]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. A&T Healthcare, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board assumed administration of the insolvent Healthcare Providers Self-Insurance Trust, which had a deficit of $132.5 million. The Board initiated an action to recover the deficit from former employer-members, including Motherly Love Home Care Services Inc., who were jointly and severally liable. Motherly Love Home Care Services Inc. executed two settlement agreements but subsequently moved to vacate them, claiming a unilateral mistake by believing they had only signed duplicate copies of one agreement. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no basis for vacating the agreements given their distinct terms and the clear clarifications provided by the Board's counsel.

Workers' Compensation TrustInsolvencySettlement AgreementVacate AgreementUnilateral MistakeJoint and Several LiabilityAppellate ReviewContract PrinciplesHome Health CareEmployer Liability
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 23,994 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