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. 9 N.Y.3d 912
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2007

In the Matter of Allen v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car

This case involves a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York considered the motion on August 13, 2007, and rendered its decision on September 18, 2007. The motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal was denied.

Workers' Compensation ClaimMotion for ReargumentLeave to AppealCourt of Appeals DecisionMotion DeniedRespondentAppellantWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2000

Claim of Spurck v. Avis Rent-A-Car

Claimant, concurrently employed by Avis Rent-A-Car and First Call, suffered a work-related compensable injury during his employment with Avis in February 1995. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the case and determined claimant's average weekly wage based on wages from both concurrent employments. Avis sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) for awards made when claimant’s wages at a subsequent employer (Autohaus South Volkswagen, Inc.) exceeded his Avis wages or pre-injury rate. Both the WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied reimbursement, a determination that Avis and its carrier appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that Avis's liability was not greater under WCL § 14 (6) than it would have been under prior law, which is the relevant inquiry for Special Fund reimbursement.

Workers CompensationSpecial Disability FundConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageReimbursementEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewReduced EarningsNew York Workers Compensation
References
5
Case No. SJO 0255977
Regular
May 20, 2008

GRACIELA RAMOS vs. ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR

The Appeals Board denied Enterprise Rent-A-Car's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the finding of industrial spine injury and 28% permanent disability based on the prior rating schedule. The Board remanded the case to the trial level to clarify the employer's self-insurance and adjustment status, given a contradictory statement from the defendant. This clarification is to determine if sanctions against the defendant are warranted for failing to properly disclose administrative information, as per *Coldiron v. Compuware*.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedFindings Award and OrderIndustrial InjurySpine InjuryPermanent DisabilityPrior Rating ScheduleLabor Code section 4061Third-Party AdministratorFrank Gates Services
References
1
Case No. ADJ7849947
Regular
Nov 13, 2012

DIONE HERNANDEZ vs. ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By AVIZENT ANAHEIM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Enterprise Rent A Car's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that applicant Dione Hernandez sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her back and right lower extremity. This decision was based on substantial evidence, including the testimony of applicant's supervisor and medical records, which corroborated the reported injury. The defendant failed to meet its burden of proof regarding prior injuries.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactSubstantial EvidenceWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReport and RecommendationMedical EvidenceBurden of ProofPreponderance of the Evidence
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06033
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

Matter of Bernal v. New York Apple Car Serv.

Claimant's spouse, a cab driver dispatched by New York Apple Car Service (NYACS), was fatally stabbed while working. Claimant filed for workers' compensation death benefits. NYACS, a member of the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF), disputed liability, contending the decedent was a black car operator, making the New York Black Car Operator's Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF) responsible. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision that the decedent was an independent livery driver, holding the ILDBF carrier liable. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, rejecting the argument that the vehicle's affiliation with the NYBCOICF was determinative and relying on precedent set in _Matter of Cisnero v Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund_.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsIndependent Livery DriverBlack Car OperatorFund LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDispatch ServiceEmployer ResponsibilityVehicle Affiliation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1992

Claim of Le Fevre v. Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Worker's Compensation Board decision finding an employer-employee relationship between a claimant and Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc. The claimant, a franchisee of Tel-A-Car's two-way radio dispatch transportation service, was required to operate a specific luxury car, lease a radio, charge Tel-A-Car's set fares, and abide by strict operational rules and a dress code. Despite some freedom in work hours, the Board based its determination of an employer-employee relationship on Tel-A-Car's significant control over car type, radio leasing, fare setting, and dispatching. The appellate court found these incidents of control sufficient to support the Board's determination. Furthermore, the court affirmed the decision and declined to consider a new argument regarding the State Franchise Act, as it was not raised before the Board.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation LawFranchise agreementControl testAppellate procedureFactual issueScope of employmentTransportation industryNew York lawGeneral Business Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 1993

Houston v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the action. The plaintiff, injured while a passenger in a vehicle driven by her coemployee, defendant Caracciolo, during a Georgia business trip, had received New York Workers' Compensation benefits. The vehicle was owned by defendant Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc. The Supreme Court's decision, affirmed by the appellate court, held that New York law precludes recovery against Avis due to Caracciolo's statutory immunity under the Workers' Compensation Law. Furthermore, the court determined that Georgia law would not impose vicarious liability on Avis, thus declining to address the choice of law issue.

Personal InjuryAutomobile AccidentCoemployee LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ImmunityVicarious LiabilitySummary JudgmentNew York LawGeorgia LawAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. Snappy Car Rental, Inc.

Plaintiff Barbara J. Morris rented a vehicle from Snappy Car Rental, and the agreement included indemnification clauses. She was later injured in an accident while her husband was driving the rental car and subsequently sued Snappy Car Rental and others. Snappy Car Rental counterclaimed for contractual indemnification and attorney's fees. The Supreme Court initially granted Snappy's motion for conditional summary judgment on indemnification and fees. However, the appellate court modified this decision, ruling that the indemnification provision was against public policy as it attempted to circumvent Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. Consequently, Snappy's entitlement to indemnification was limited to liability exceeding its statutorily mandated coverage, and its request for attorney's fees was denied.

rental car agreementindemnification clausepublic policyVehicle and Traffic Lawvicarious liabilityinsurance coveragesummary judgmentcontract interpretationpersonal injuryappellate review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Allen v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car

MISSING

References
1
Showing 1-10 of 945 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