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. 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

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a professional employer organization (PEO) may be a proper claimant under a labor and materials surety bond. Plaintiff Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a PEO, provided employee leasing services to Team Star Contractors, Inc. for a construction project, covering payroll, taxes, and insurance. When Team Star failed to pay, Tri-State filed a claim with the surety, Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., which was dismissed by the District Court. The New York Court of Appeals determined that a PEO's primary role as an administrative services provider and payroll financier creates a presumption that it does not provide labor for the purpose of a payment bond claim. The Court found that Tri-State failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating sufficient direction and control over the workers. Consequently, the Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. is not a proper claimant under the surety bond in the circumstances presented.

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a June 16, 2009, determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB's determination reversed an earlier administrative law judge's decision, finding that the NYCTA had committed an improper labor practice by unilaterally implementing new standards for off-duty secondary employment without negotiating with the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100. PERB directed the NYCTA to make whole certain employees and subsequently filed a cross-petition to enforce its order. The court found that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence, noting that an employer's restriction on nonworking time is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Taylor Law. Consequently, the court confirmed PERB's determination, denied the NYCTA's petition, dismissed the proceeding on the merits, and granted PERB's cross-petition for enforcement of its remedial order.

Public EmploymentLabor RelationsCollective BargainingImproper Labor PracticeOff-Duty Secondary EmploymentCivil Service LawTaylor LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Public Employment Relations Board

The State University of New York at Albany (SUNYA) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determination. PERB had previously found that SUNYA engaged in improper employer practices by directing employees to take leave without pay or use accrued leave for a day off after Thanksgiving in 1977 and 1978, violating Civil Service Law § 209-a (1) (d). SUNYA argued against PERB's refusal to defer to arbitration awards and its interpretation of contractual rights. The court affirmed PERB's findings, concluding that PERB's actions were neither arbitrary nor capricious, and upheld the remedy requiring compensation for affected employees. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and PERB's determination was confirmed.

CPLR Article 78Improper Employer PracticePublic Employment Relations BoardState University of New York at AlbanyCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAdministrative ReviewMandatory Subject of Negotiation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Afflito v. Estee Frocks, Inc.

The petitioner, a union member, sought to overturn an arbitrator's award concerning grievances against his employer, an application opposed by both the employer and the union. The petitioner argued his eligibility to bring the action as a third-party beneficiary of the contract. However, the court ruled it could not review the merits of the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator misconduct. Citing Matter of Soto (Goldman) and Parker v. Borock, the court determined that the petitioner, not being a direct party to the arbitration agreement, lacked the standing to challenge the award against the employer under the Civil Practice Act. The court clarified that remedies under the Civil Practice Act are limited to parties to the arbitration. It further suggested that the petitioner's sole recourse for a meritorious grievance would be against the union for failing to initiate arbitration or for negligence in prosecuting it. Consequently, the court denied the application and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had no direct remedy against the employer.

Arbitrator's AwardThird-Party BeneficiaryCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee GrievanceUnion RepresentationJudicial Review of ArbitrationCivil Practice ActStanding to SueEmployer LiabilityUnion Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1987

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waterfront Commission

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor (WC) and other employer-defendants, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The dispute centered on whether the WC, in its licensing capacity for pier guards, qualified as an "employer" under the ADEA. The court granted summary judgment for the WC, concluding it was not an employer in its licensing role, distinguishing it from cases involving direct employment or significant control without state police power. The court also dismissed claims against all other employer-defendants, and initially sanctioned the EEOC attorney, though this sanction was later vacated upon reconsideration. Ultimately, the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActSummary JudgmentEmployer DefinitionWaterfront CommissionLicensing AuthorityEEOCPier GuardsRule 11 SanctionsReconsiderationInterstate Compact
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1978

Di Bernardo v. Heimroth

This appeal arises from an order denying an employer's motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by Heimroth. The central legal question addresses whether an employer can be held liable to a third-party tort-feasor for their own negligence, even though Workers' Compensation Law generally bars direct employee actions against the employer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, reiterating that Workers' Compensation Law does not serve as a complete defense for an employer in actions involving a third-party tort-feasor's independent negligence. The prior ruling in Di Bernardo v Heimroth was cited as establishing a basis for employer contribution to a third-party tort-feasor, a point found to be dispositive of the current appeal.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party Tort-feasorEmployer LiabilitySummary JudgmentIndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewSection 29Workers' Compensation Defense
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1991

Davis v. Alpha Apple, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant's decedent sustained an accidental injury during employment and awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer appealed this decision, arguing that the record lacked adequate support for the Board's finding. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that whether an activity falls within the course of employment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve. The court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's determination, noting that the decedent was directed by a supervisor to perform an activity not for personal gain, with the employer's knowledge, and died as a result of an injury sustained while using the employer's equipment. The court also highlighted that even if an activity primarily benefits a supervisor privately, an injury sustained during that work may still be compensable.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewSupervisor's DirectionEmployer's EquipmentCompensable InjuryBoard Decision Affirmed
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hope v. Warren County Board of Elections

This case involves an appeal by a workers' compensation carrier regarding the calculation of a claimant's average weekly wage based on concurrent employment. The claimant, injured on November 3, 2009, had employment as a polling inspector and concurrently with a retail store. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board calculated the claimant's average weekly wage based on both employments, totaling $80.69, and directed the carrier to continue awards. The carrier appealed, arguing that awards should only be based on the primary employment wage of $3.56 due to the inability to seek reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for concurrent employment amounts following 2007 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting the statutory language to mean that primary employers are liable for benefits calculated on combined average weekly wages, and the 2007 amendments did not intend to reduce benefits for injured workers.

Concurrent Employment BenefitsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationSpecial Disability Fund ClosureWorkers' Compensation Law § 14(6)Statutory Amendment ImpactEmployer Liability LimitsTemporary Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityAppellate Review of WCABLegislative Purpose Analysis
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Public Employment Relations Board v. Board of Education

The concurring opinion, authored by Judge Fuchsberg, affirms the ultimate disposition of the case, upholding the Public Employment Relations Board's (PERB) order. The opinion delves into the critical distinction between an administrative agency exceeding its jurisdiction and merely committing an error of law. It argues that an order issued without statutory power or in excess thereof is inherently void and subject to collateral attack, even if statutory time limits for direct review have passed. Judge Fuchsberg supports this jurisdictional argument by referencing several prior cases, including *Matter of Foy v Schechter* and *Matter of Guardian Life Ins. Co. v Bohlinger*. Ultimately, the opinion concludes that the PERB's remedial orders were fully authorized due to a specific statutory violation, despite the complex jurisdictional challenges raised.

Public Employment Relations BoardAdministrative LawJurisdictionCollateral AttackStatutory InterpretationError of LawBack PayCivil Service LawArticle 78PERB
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 11,929 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