Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 21 NY3d 861

Regular Panel Decision

Town of Islip v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Town of Islip challenged a determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) that the Town committed an improper practice by unilaterally discontinuing the permanent assignment of town-owned vehicles to certain employees for commuting. PERB had found this practice to be an economic benefit and a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Town argued that the practice was illegal under its local code of ethics and therefore not subject to negotiation. The Court affirmed PERB's finding that the Town engaged in an improper practice, concluding that the past practice of providing 'take-home' vehicles was not illegal under the Town's code. However, the Court modified PERB's remedial order, finding it unreasonable to compel the Town to repurchase vehicles it had sold, and remitted the case for PERB to fashion a more practical remedy.

Public Employment Relations BoardImproper PracticeUnilateral ChangePast PracticeMandatory Subject of BargainingTake-Home VehiclesCommuting BenefitEconomic BenefitCivil Service LawTaylor Law

References

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. Speckard

Plaintiff, an employee of the State University, was injured in a car collision with defendant Hubert J. Speckard, who was also a State employee and superintendent of a correctional facility. Both were returning home from work in State-owned vehicles at the time of the accident. Plaintiff sued defendant for personal injuries, but the defendant raised an affirmative defense, asserting that workers' compensation was the plaintiff's exclusive remedy due to co-employment. The court examined whether the defendant was acting in the course of his employment, applying an exception for employer-provided vehicles used for commuting when the employer benefits. It was determined that because the defendant was on call 24 hours a day and used a State-provided vehicle equipped for work, his use of the vehicle was within the course of employment, making workers' compensation the plaintiff's exclusive remedy. Consequently, the cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against defendant Speckard was dismissed.

Co-employment defenseExclusive remedyAutomobile collisionCommuting exceptionEmployer benefit ruleState employeesSummary judgmentAffirmative defenseScope of employmentVehicle provision

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 14, 1999

Claim of Monachino v. P. Vigneri & Sons, Inc.

The claimant's decedent, an employee at a farm, was provided with an employer's truck for commuting. On April 11, 1999, he was fatally injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving the employer's vehicle home after leaving work early. The claimant, the decedent's spouse, sought workers' compensation death benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding that the death did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The court affirmed this decision, noting that the employer's provision of the vehicle was for the decedent's convenience, not for employment duties, and the employer exercised no control over the decedent's activities at the time of the accident. The court concluded that the employer's ownership of the vehicle was insufficient to establish a causal nexus to employment.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentCommuting AccidentEmployer-Provided VehicleControl over Employee ActivitiesCausal NexusFarm EmploymentMotor Vehicle Accident

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. R. I. Suresky & Sons, Inc.

The claimant, an automobile salesperson, was injured in an accident while driving a demonstrator vehicle provided by his employer to a grocery store on a holiday. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially granted benefits, ruling that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment because the claimant was providing a valuable service through the visibility of the demonstrator vehicle. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the claimant's travel was for a personal errand on personal time and that the mere presence of dealer identification on the vehicle did not transform personal use into business use. The court concluded there was no substantial evidence that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, as the claimant was neither on-call nor traveling to or from work at the time of the accident.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsDemonstrator VehiclePersonal ErrandCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentAutomobile SalespersonOff-Duty InjuryAppellate ReviewReversal of DecisionEmployer Benefit

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 04, 1997

Claim of D'Accordo v. Spare Wheels & Car Shoppe of Sayville

A claimant, an automobile salesperson, was injured in an accident while driving an employer-provided vehicle to complete a sale to his brother-in-law. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment, a decision challenged by the employer and its insurance carrier. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, citing sufficient evidence that the claimant's activity, though off-schedule, was work-related. This was supported by coworker testimony regarding the employer's encouragement of off-site sales and the claimant's history of sales to family members, establishing a factual basis for the Board's resolution that the activity was reasonable and work-related.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentAutomobile SalesWork-Related ActivityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionEmployer LiabilityInsurance CarrierFactual Question

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rivera v. North Central Bronx Hospital

The employer appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, arguing that the Board incorrectly interpreted Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-a (7) by mandating reimbursement to the claimant’s doctor for an EMG test. The employer contended that since the claimant failed to use a specified provider as per statutory notice, it should not be obligated to pay. However, the court found no statutory or historical support for nonpayment as a remedy, noting that the law aims to provide swift benefits to injured employees and prevent providers from collecting directly from workers. The court emphasized that allowing the employer to avoid payment would harm medical providers and deter their participation in the workers’ compensation system. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, requiring the employer to pay its in-network rate to the claimant's doctor.

Workers' Compensation LawEMG test reimbursementEmployer appealStatutory interpretationMedical provider paymentClaimant medical expensesSelf-insured employersDiagnostic testsLegislative intentBoard decision affirmed

References

Case No. ADJ10821758

Regular

Dec 16, 2019

EMILIA MONGE vs. SEAN BROSMITH and HSIU-YEN BROSMITH; FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that found an applicant's injury compensable. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the applicant's injury occurred during a special mission for the employer, specifically while fueling a company vehicle to prepare for subsequent duties. Furthermore, the applicant was compensated for travel time and used an employer-provided vehicle, both of which create exceptions to the "going and coming" rule. Finally, the Board determined that the statute of limitations was tolled because the employer failed to provide the applicant with notice of her workers' compensation rights.

Going and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionEmployer Furnished VehicleCompensated Travel TimeWCAB Rule 10848Petition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsIndustrial CausationLabor Code §5403Tolled Statute of Limitations

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment

References

Showing 1-10 of 13,612 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 21 NY3d 861

Regular Panel Decision

Town of Islip v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

Public Employment Relations BoardImproper PracticeUnilateral ChangePast PracticeMandatory Subject of BargainingTake-Home VehiclesCommuting BenefitEconomic BenefitCivil Service LawTaylor Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. Speckard

Co-employment defenseExclusive remedyAutomobile collisionCommuting exceptionEmployer benefit ruleState employeesSummary judgmentAffirmative defenseScope of employmentVehicle provision

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 14, 1999

Claim of Monachino v. P. Vigneri & Sons, Inc.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. R. I. Suresky & Sons, Inc.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsDemonstrator VehiclePersonal ErrandCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentAutomobile SalespersonOff-Duty InjuryAppellate ReviewReversal of DecisionEmployer Benefit

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 04, 1997

Claim of D'Accordo v. Spare Wheels & Car Shoppe of Sayville

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentAutomobile SalesWork-Related ActivityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionEmployer LiabilityInsurance CarrierFactual Question

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rivera v. North Central Bronx Hospital

References

Case No. ADJ10821758

Regular

Dec 16, 2019

EMILIA MONGE vs. SEAN BROSMITH and HSIU-YEN BROSMITH; FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment

References

Showing 1-10 of 13,612 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.