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

Claim of Joyner v. Event Design Associates, Inc.

Claimant was retained by Event Design Associates, Inc. (EDA) to transport furniture and event props for a party. While en route to a hotel during this assignment, claimant was involved in an automobile accident and sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits, asserting an employer-employee relationship with EDA. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that an employment relationship existed. EDA appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship, based on factors such as EDA's control over the work, method of payment, and right to terminate.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceControl TestAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentNew YorkWorkers' Compensation BoardTemporary Employment
References
4
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. ADJ8276917
Regular
Jun 03, 2014

MARIO GONZALEZ vs. WEST PICO FOODS, INC., and TOWER SELECT INSURANCE, administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior finding that Mario Gonzalez sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, rejecting the employer's post-termination defense. The Board also imposed a $950 sanction against the applicant's attorneys, Lawrence Y. Kao, Esq. and Pearlman, Borska & Wax, LLP, for misrepresenting facts and the record in their petition. The attorneys' responses failed to demonstrate good cause to avoid sanctions, as they primarily argued the merits of the injury claim rather than addressing the issues raised by the sanctions notice. The employer's insurance administrator, York Insurance Services Group, Inc., was not held responsible for the attorneys' conduct.

AOE/COEpost-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)petition for reconsiderationNotice of Intention to Impose SanctionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardadministrative law judgefindings and ordersanctionsPearlman Borska & Wax
References
0
Case No. ADJ8521155
Regular
Sep 02, 2014

VICENTE AGUILAR vs. U-TURN SEVEN CORPORATION, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and denied the petitions for reconsideration filed by Employers Compensation Insurance Company and Star Insurance Company. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, finding Star's petition contained inflammatory and intemperate language that impugned the integrity of the WCJ and the Board. Consequently, the WCAB granted removal on its own motion and issued a notice of intent to sanction Star and its attorney for approximately $1,500 due to these statements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVicente AguilarU-Turn Seven CorporationEmployers Compensation Insurance CompanyStar Insurance CompanyFindings and Awardcumulative injurybilateral handswristsarms
References
1
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

Lippman v. Public Employment Relations Board

This proceeding involved the Unified Court System (UCS) challenging a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found that UCS violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally issuing an administrative order in December 1997 that amended regulations (22 NYCRR part 108) related to court reporters' fees for selling transcripts to litigants. The court reviewed PERB's findings that the new page-rate guidelines and a mandatory "Minute Agreement Form" constituted an improper practice by altering terms of employment. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the page-rate guidelines actually limited reporters' compensation. Furthermore, while the Agreement Form did alter some aspects of employment, its impact was minimal and outweighed by UCS's broader mission to ensure understandable, uniform, timely, and affordable access to justice. Therefore, the court annulled PERB's determination and granted the petition.

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy
References
24
Case No. ADJ7836773
Regular
Jul 09, 2012

Francisco Flores vs. Superior Carpet Works, Inc., Preferred Employers

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a sanctions order against the Law Offices of John A. Mendoza. The Appeals Board is also notifying the law firm of its intention to impose additional sanctions. This is due to alleged misrepresentations of fact in the petition for reconsideration and violations of Appeals Board rules regarding attaching previously filed documents. The law firm is granted twenty days to show cause why these additional sanctions should not be imposed.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSANCTIONSRECONSIDERATIONDEPOSITION ATTORNEY FEESLABOR CODE SECTION 5710LABOR CODE SECTION 5813APPEALS BOARD RULESDUE PROCESSMISREPRESENTATIONSFAILURE TO RESPOND
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lashlee v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling

The Special Disability Fund appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's average weekly wage calculation. The claimant, injured while employed by Pepsi-Cola, also had concurrent employment with Mid-Hudson Limousine Service, Inc. and Robert H. Auchmoody Funeral Homes, Inc. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) included Auchmoody as a concurrent employer, increasing the claimant's average weekly wage. The Fund argued that Auchmoody should not be considered a "covered" employer because there was no proof of workers' compensation insurance. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that "covered" employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) refers to an employer subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law, irrespective of whether they actually carried an insurance policy, and that the law must be liberally construed in favor of employees.

Workers’ CompensationConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageCovered EmploymentIndependent ContractorSpecial Disability FundInsurance PolicyLiberal ConstructionAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
4
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. ADJ8838013
Regular
Dec 01, 2016

AARON CARRILLO vs. LLG CORPORATION, DBA FRESCO II, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a busboy who injured himself in a car accident after consuming alcohol on his employer's premises after his shift. The applicant sought workers' compensation, arguing that his injuries arose out of and in the course of employment, with alcohol use being a customary incident. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury. The applicant's presence and drinking were deemed personal socializing, not an employer-sanctioned or expected activity, thus not meeting the AOE/COE standard.

AOE/COEcustomary incident of employmentpost-shift intoxicationreasonable expectancy of employmentintoxication defenseproximate and substantial causeMcCarty v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.social patroncredibility determinationLabor Code section 3600
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 11,514 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