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

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Civil Service Employees Association (C.S.E.A.) filed an Article 78 application to challenge actions taken by the City of White Plains and the Public Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.). C.S.E.A. sought to vacate a resolution where the City recognized a different employee organization (S.I.W.A.) for a portion of its employees, thereby altering C.S.E.A.'s bargaining unit, and to annul a P.E.R.B. order upholding the City's action. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing improper venue and that it was not a proper party. The court determined that Albany County was the correct venue and that the City was a proper party. The central issue was whether the City could unilaterally change bargaining unit composition without C.S.E.A.'s consent or a decertification petition. The court ultimately denied C.S.E.A.'s requested relief, agreeing with P.E.R.B. that public employers can recognize different employee organizations once an incumbent's unchallenged representation status period expires, in accordance with Civil Service Law sections 204 and 208.

Public Employment RelationsCollective Bargaining UnitsEmployee Organization RecognitionTaylor LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 CPLRBargaining Unit AlterationDecertification ProceedingsPublic Employer RightsVenue Disputes
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Monahan v. Remington Rand, Inc.

A self-insured employer appealed a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision granting death benefits to the widow of a deceased employee. The core issue was whether the employee's death resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The employee, an outside service man, was killed in a car accident on his way home after volunteering to repair a machine for his employer in Albany. The Board determined he remained an outside worker and that the accident was work-related. The appellate court affirmed, finding the Board's decision justified by the evidence, as the work performed was clearly for the employer's benefit.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsOutside WorkerCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewVoluntary WorkFatal AccidentBoard Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Claim of Rainone v. 36th Street Terminal Corp.

This case is an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed August 4, 1993, which found an employer-employee relationship between the decedent and Universal Maritime Service Corporation, in addition to 36th Street Terminal Corporation. The decedent, a security guard for 36th Street, was killed by a forklift operated by a Universal employee. The Board had ruled that 36th Street was the general employer and Universal was the special employer. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence supporting the employment relationship with Universal, considering factors such as Universal's ownership of 36th Street, 36th Street's exclusive work for Universal, and Universal's provision of work equipment and assignments to 36th Street employees.

employer-employee relationshipspecial employergeneral employerworkers' compensationfatal accidentsecurity guardforklift accidentsubstantial evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
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

Claim of Keles v. Santos

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied a claimant's request for workers' compensation benefits. The claimant, primarily employed by Plymouth Beef Company, sought benefits for an injury allegedly sustained while performing inspection work for Augusto B. Santos, who owned a cleaning business at the same facility. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found no employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and Santos, leading to the disallowance of the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting the lack of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors considered included Santos's lack of control over the claimant's work, the cessation of payment to the claimant months before the accident, and the gratuitous nature of the claimant's continued services, which did not establish an employment bond.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRight to ControlMethod of PaymentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionGratuitous ServicesScope of Employment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fina v. New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority

The case involves a claimant who injured his leg while serving as a volunteer ski patroller. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and the New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority, despite the claimant's initial volunteer status being established without controversy. The Board's decision reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's determination that the claimant, a volunteer, was entitled to benefits based on his regular vocation as a self-employed engineer. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination of an employer-employee relationship, noting that the Board relied solely on the claimant's testimony from a time when his volunteer status was undisputed. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for a review of the claimant's average weekly wage based on his volunteer status.

Employer-Employee RelationshipVolunteer StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAverage Weekly WageSubstantial EvidenceScope of Board ReviewSki PatrolGore Mountain Ski CenterNew York State Olympic Regional Development AuthorityRemand
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pelaez v. Silverstone

A claimant sustained a head injury from a horse in December 2007 and sought workers' compensation benefits, naming Silverbrook Farm, Inc. as the employer. Silverstone Corporation, operating as Silverbrook, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, disputed the employer-employee relationship. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently determined that Silverbrook Farm, Inc. was the employer. The Board also denied Silverbrook's application for reconsideration or full Board review. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship with Silverbrook and no abuse of discretion in the Board's denial of further record development or reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppealSubstantial EvidenceBoard ReviewReconsiderationFarmHorse InjuryPayrollLease Agreement
References
8
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
Showing 1-10 of 12,669 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