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 Young v. New York State Police

Claimant, a State Trooper, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving to work in Westchester County. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, given she was on call 24 hours a day and within her assigned geographical area, and awarded benefits. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, emphasizing that accidents during commuting typically do not arise out of employment unless there is a sufficient causal nexus established by employer control. The court found insufficient evidence of the employer's control over the claimant's activities at the time of the accident to establish this nexus, distinguishing the case from precedents where such control was present. Consequently, the claim for workers' compensation benefits was dismissed.

Commuting AccidentCourse of EmploymentArising Out Of EmploymentEmployer ControlState TrooperMotor Vehicle AccidentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal NexusAppellate ReviewClaim Dismissed
References
8
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
May 24, 1995

Claim of Shoemaker v. Manpower, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the employment status of a claimant who was injured while working at Westwood Pharmaceuticals. The claimant was generally employed by Manpower, Inc., a temporary employee supplier. Westwood contended that it was the claimant's special employer, limiting her remedy to workers' compensation. The Board initially found that Westwood's control was insufficient to establish a special employment relationship, ruling Manpower as the sole employer. Both Westwood and Manpower appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's findings, concluding that the evidence demonstrated Westwood exercised exclusive control and supervision over the claimant's activities, thereby establishing a special employment relationship. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this Court's decision.

Special EmploymentTemporary EmployeeWorkers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityControl TestDual EmploymentAppellate ReviewRemittalSubstantial EvidencePersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. ADJ8717299
Regular
Mar 14, 2017

JOSEPH LOBB vs. JEFFREY D. HADDEN, JEFFREY D. HADDEN AND DOROTHY M. HADDEN DBA NAT PEST CONTROL AND FIREWOOK AKA NPC, DOROTHY M. HADDEN, NATURAL PEST CONTROLS FIREWOOD

This case involves an employer's objection, treated as a petition for reconsideration, to a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that awarded benefits to an employee. The employers claim they never received notice of the original WCJ's decision or subsequent Board actions, including the September 2, 2016 decision. The WCAB found that the employers were indeed deprived of due process due to improper service. Consequently, the WCAB granted reconsideration to allow the employers to file an answer and ensure a just decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDue ProcessImproper NoticeOfficial Address RecordProof of ServiceDeclaration of ServiceToll StatuteActual NoticeWCJ DecisionAppeals Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McLeod v. Ground Handling, Inc.

This case addresses whether an accident occurring on a public street, away from the immediate place of employment but near the workplace, arose out of and in the course of employment. The court examined the 'gray area' where risks of street travel merge with employment risks, emphasizing the need for a special hazard at the accident point and a close association of the access route with the premises. The Board found no special hazard on the county road, which was used by the general public and not controlled by the employer. Consequently, the accident was deemed a risk shared by the general public, not related to the claimant's employment. The decision affirming the Board's finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment was upheld.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentOff-premises AccidentSpecial Hazard RuleStreet RiskGoing and Coming RulePublic RoadAccess RouteEmployer ControlAppellate Review
References
5
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
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

Control Network Communications, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Plaintiff Control Network Communications, Inc. (CNC) initiated an action against defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 236, alleging breach of contract and fraud under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). CNC contended that Local 236 violated a 'most favored nations' clause in their collective bargaining agreement by offering more favorable terms to another employer, Adirondack Cabling. CNC's grievance was ultimately denied by the Labor Management Committee (LMC). The court granted Local 236's motion to dismiss, finding the LMC's decision on the breach of contract claim to be final and binding due to CNC's failure to timely petition for vacation. Additionally, the court ruled that CNC's fraud claim was preempted by the LMRA, as its resolution required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.

Breach of contractFraud claimLabor Management Relations Act (LMRA)Most favored nations clauseCollective bargaining agreement (CBA)Grievance procedureMotion to dismissFederal preemptionLabor Management Committee (LMC)Final and binding determination
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anowai v. Holiday Inn

Claimant, a security officer, was struck on the head by falling facade debris from an adjacent building shortly after completing his shift at a Manhattan hotel. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, deeming it within the area of egress. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the accident did not occur as an incident or risk of employment because it happened on a public street, in front of a separate building, and involved a hazard outside the employer's control. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to overturn its factual findings regarding the nexus between the accident and the claimant's employment. The court reiterated that while risks near the employment situs can merge with employment risks, the Board's discretionary determination of such risks should be respected.

Accidental InjuryScope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleEgress and IngressStreet RiskPublic SidewalkEmployer ControlFactual FindingsAppellate ReviewSecurity Officer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2013

Noboa v. International Shoppes, Inc.

Claimant, a sales associate, was injured while being transported home by her employer in a merchandise van during a snowstorm after her shift was unexpectedly terminated. Public transportation was suspended due to the severe weather. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed her claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision and awarded benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment because the employer assumed responsibility for employee transportation and maintained exclusive control over the conveyance, establishing a clear nexus between the accident and employment. The court referenced several precedents supporting this exception to the general 'going and coming' rule.

Workers' CompensationSnowstorm InjuryEmployer Provided TransportationScope of EmploymentAccident During CommuteAppellate AffirmationBoard DecisionEmployee SafetyNexus to EmploymentCompensable Injury
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 11,129 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