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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC

The case concerns a putative class action brought by delivery drivers against several defendants, including Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC, for alleged violations of Labor Law article 6 regarding wage and benefit payments. The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, categorizing the drivers as independent contractors. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship due to the defendants' control over their work. The court also determined that the documentary evidence provided by the defendants was insufficient to conclusively prove the drivers were independent contractors, thus denying the motions to dismiss.

Class ActionLabor LawWage and HourEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewDegree of ControlDelivery DriversWorkers' Rights
References
26
Case No. LAO 0856142
Regular
Jan 04, 2008

MARCO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ vs. LANCA, INC. dba LANCA EXPRESS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involved an applicant, a delivery driver, who was shot and robbed while exiting a hotel after a delivery run. The applicant argued his injuries were work-related under the "commercial traveler" rule, which extends coverage to employees traveling for business. The defense contended the applicant was engaged in personal activities when injured, even if the location was a high-crime area. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the injury was industrial, as the applicant's work duties brought him to the location where the incident occurred, and personal activities during travel are generally covered if reasonable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCommercial Traveler RuleCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentCredibility DeterminationReasonable InferencesPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryBusiness TripLodging and Meals
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2000

Claim of Harris v. Poughkeepsie Journal

The decedent, a newspaper delivery driver, was found dead at work after choking on food. The Workers' Compensation Board denied death benefits, ruling that his death resulted from a purely personal act, thereby rebutting the Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 presumption that an unwitnessed death in the course of employment arises out of employment. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. The court found that eating during a shift was sufficiently work-related, especially since the employer did not provide meal breaks and drivers often ate on the go to meet delivery schedules. Additionally, the decedent was required to wait at the employer's premises during a holiday weekend, and eating was deemed a reasonable activity during this waiting period, thus the Board's decision lacked support.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsScope of EmploymentPersonal PursuitArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Law § 21Presumption of CausationUnwitnessed Accidental DeathEmployer's Premises
References
7
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. 2021 NY Slip Op 04070
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Cisnero v. Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund

Claimant Jeffrey Cisnero, an independent livery driver, sustained injuries when he was shot during a dispatch. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was initially disallowed by a WCLJ but later reversed by the Workers' Compensation Board, finding coverage through the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF). The carrier appealed, arguing misinterpretation of the relevant statutes, particularly Executive Law § 160-ddd (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Cisnero's injuries arose out of and in the course of providing covered services as an independent livery driver dispatched by an ILDBF member. The court found that the vehicle's attenuated affiliation with the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. did not alter ILDBF's liability.

Workers' CompensationLivery DriverIndependent ContractorBenefit FundAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ16905183
Regular
Apr 03, 2025

KIMBERLY ARREOLA CORTES vs. OC DIRECT DELIVERY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

Kimberly Arreola Cortes, a delivery associate, claimed a work-related injury but repeatedly failed to attend scheduled medical evaluations with QME Dr. Ryan Culver due to personal reasons and relocation. Following a petition by the defendant, OC Direct Delivery, for dismissal due to inactivity, the WCJ issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss Case. Applicant filed a premature Petition for Reconsideration, incorrectly believing the NIT was a final order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration, finding both applicant's petition and defendant's prior petition for dismissal premature due to errors in applying notice periods for out-of-state service, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissQualified Medical EvaluatorAOE/COEOut-of-State RelocationWCAB Rule 10550Inactive Case DismissalPetition for DismissalPremature Filing
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Buiza

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which determined that delivery drivers for Dependable Delivery, Inc. were employees, not independent contractors, and therefore entitled to unemployment benefits. The court examined various factors indicative of control exercised by Dependable, including established delivery routes, fixed weekly payments, Dependable handling customer relations and bearing risk of loss, and the inclusion of drivers under its workers' compensation and automobile liability policies. Despite the presence of some factors suggesting an independent contractor relationship, the court found sufficient evidence to support the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipDelivery ServicesSubstantial EvidenceControl TestWorkers' CompensationAutomobile LiabilityAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02467
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

Matter of Chichester (Northeast Logistics, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case involves an appeal from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Northeast Logistics, Inc. (NEL) liable for unemployment insurance contributions for Sledge Chichester and similarly situated drivers. Chichester, an owner-operator driver for NEL, applied for unemployment benefits after ceasing delivery services. The Department of Labor and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that Chichester was an employee of NEL, citing NEL's exercise of control over its drivers, including setting delivery expectations, deducting fees, and imposing non-disclosure agreements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employer-employee relationship, despite some evidence to the contrary.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceOwner-Operator AgreementDelivery ServicesUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate ReviewControl TestLabor Law
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24011 [82 Misc 3d 812]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2024

Smith v. Ryder

The Supreme Court, Albany County, addressed a negligence case where plaintiff Karla Smith sued Richard Ryder, Jr., a newspaper delivery person, and The Hearst Corporation/Hearst Communications, Inc., after Ryder struck her in a crosswalk. The core legal dispute involved whether Ryder was an employee or an independent contractor for Hearst, which would determine Hearst's vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Hearst moved for summary judgment, arguing that Labor Law and Workers' Compensation Law provisions classifying delivery persons as independent contractors for statutory benefits should override common law and apply to negligence claims. However, the court denied Hearst's motion, ruling that these statutes do not abrogate the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior in tort cases. The court found that a triable question of fact existed regarding Ryder's employment status, based on Hearst's alleged control over his delivery methods, monetary aspects, and disciplinary processes.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentNegligenceNewspaper DeliveryStatutory InterpretationCommon LawLabor Law
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 3,395 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