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
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Enriquez v. Home Lawn Care & Landscaping, Inc.

The claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining an injury from falling off a ladder while working for Home Lawn Care and Landscaping, Inc. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined an employer-employee relationship existed and that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings and found Home Lawn Care had violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) due to an untimely notice of controversy. Home Lawn Care appealed. The appellate court agreed that the Board erred in finding a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) but upheld the Board's determination of an employer-employee relationship and that the injury arose from employment, thus modifying and affirming the Board's decisions.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryNotice of ControversySubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewLadder FallGutter Cleaning
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. No. 11, No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2019

Lilya Andryeyeva v. New York Health Care , Adriana Moreno v. Future Care Health Services

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a common issue in two joint appeals: whether home health care aides on 24-hour shifts must be paid for each hour. The Department of Labor (DOL) interpreted its Wage Order (12 NYCRR part 142) to allow payment for at least 13 hours if the employee receives at least 8 hours for sleep (with 5 uninterrupted) and 3 hours for meals. The Appellate Division rejected this, but the Court of Appeals reversed, deferring to DOL's interpretation as rational and consistent with the Wage Order's plain language. The cases were remitted for lower courts to evaluate class certification issues in accordance with DOL's interpretation.

Home Health Care24-Hour ShiftsMinimum Wage ActWage OrderDepartment of Labor InterpretationClass CertificationAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsSleep BreaksMeal Breaks
References
49
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02696 [183 AD3d 983]
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2020

Matter of Zuniga v. Aliah Home Care Inc.

Zulma Zuniga, a home health care aide, filed a workers' compensation claim listing Aliah Home Care Inc. as her employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found Aliah to be Zuniga's employer and 100% liable for awards. Aliah later filed an application with the Workers' Compensation Board seeking review, asserting that Zuniga was actually employed by County Agency. The Board denied Aliah's application as untimely, as it was filed well beyond the 30-day window. Aliah's subsequent request for reconsideration was also denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the untimely application for review.

Workers' CompensationTimelinessApplication for ReviewAdministrative DiscretionEmployer LiabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityHome Health CareAppellate ReviewUntimely FilingBoard Decision
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06107 [243 AD3d 986]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

Matter of Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc. v. McDonald

The case involves Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc., a licensed home care services agency, challenging the Commissioner of Health's determination to revoke its license and impose a monetary penalty. The revocation stemmed from multiple deficiencies found during DOH surveys in 2019 and 2021, a substantiated patient complaint, and the agency's failure to comply with a temporary suspension order. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The Court also found the penalty, license revocation and a monetary fine, was not disproportionate or shocking to one's sense of fairness, considering the serious danger posed to vulnerable patients.

Home Care Services AgencyLicense RevocationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of HealthCPLR Article 78Monetary PenaltyTemporary Suspension OrderPatient Care Deficiencies
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01170
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2023

Teshabaeva v. Family Home Care Servs. of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc.

Maktumma Teshabaeva and Jian Hua Deng, former home health aids, initiated a wage-and-hour class action against Family Home Care Services of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., alleging underpayment for 24-hour shifts and overtime. Defendants sought to compel arbitration based on a 2015 memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the plaintiffs' union, which established a mandatory alternative dispute resolution procedure. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to compel, ruling the MOA did not apply to plaintiffs who terminated employment before its effective date. After a federal court confirmed an arbitration interim award, defendants moved to renew their arbitration motion, which the Supreme Court denied, also granting plaintiffs legal fees for opposing the motion. Separately, the Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' answer due to persistent discovery non-compliance. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed both Supreme Court orders, finding the federal court's confirmation did not constitute new facts for renewal, and reiterated that lower federal court decisions are not binding precedent in state courts. The court also upheld the sanctions against defendants for frivolous conduct and their willful failure to comply with discovery demands.

Wage-and-hour disputeLabor Law claimsBreach of contractClass actionArbitrationAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Motion to renewDiscovery sanctionsFrivolous conductRes judicata
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 1994

Walker v. EHCCI Home Care Services, Inc.

The Supreme Court of New York County, presided over by Justice Carol Huff, issued an order on July 25, 1994, which affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The central issue revolved around whether home care workers owe a duty of care to a plaintiff beyond standard contractual duties like cooking and cleaning. The court found that such a duty existed, citing the worker's training on the plaintiff's MS symptoms and previous emergency calls on the plaintiff's behalf. Triable issues of fact remain regarding whether this duty was breached when the plaintiff was left unattended during working hours, and if subsequent events were a foreseeable consequence. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the defendants' motion for summary judgment was appropriately denied, thus affirming the lower court's decision.

Duty of CareSummary JudgmentNegligenceHome Care ServicesTriable Issues of FactForeseeabilityBreach of DutyPatient CareMS PatientNew York Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. People Care Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, which granted the plaintiff's motions for leave to amend complaints. The plaintiff, a group self-insured trust, initiated collection actions against former member employers, People Care Incorporated and Recco Home Care Services, Inc., for unpaid workers' compensation adjustment bills. The plaintiff sought to add its trustees as party plaintiffs and to update allegations to include subsequently accrued unpaid bills. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, clarifying that an evidentiary showing of merit is not required for leave to amend pleadings under CPLR 3025 (b) unless there is prejudice, surprise, palpable insufficiency, or patent lack of merit. The court found no such grounds for denial and also rejected the defendants' statute of limitations arguments, affirming that for contracts requiring continuing performance, each breach can restart the limitations period.

Workers' Compensation CoverageSelf-Insured TrustBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentPleading AmendmentCPLR 3025 (b)Statute of LimitationsPrejudiceAppellate ReviewSupreme Court Order
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franzese v. United Health Care/Oxford

Plaintiffs Robert and Elizabeth Franzese, parents and legal guardians of disabled adult Robert Franzese Jr. ("Bobby"), sued United Health Care/Oxford under ERISA to recover medical benefits. Bobby, suffering from chronic lung disease, requires 24/7 in-home nursing care. Oxford denied preauthorization for private duty nursing, citing it as an exclusion, and denied home health care services. The court granted Oxford's summary judgment motion regarding private duty nursing and Xopenex preauthorization, finding private duty nursing not covered. However, the court denied Oxford's motion regarding home health care services, deeming Oxford's denial arbitrary and capricious due to lack of substantial evidence. The case is remanded to Oxford for reconsideration of home health care benefits.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Medical BenefitsHealth Insurance DenialSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardHome Health CarePrivate Duty NursingPreauthorizationMedical NecessityChronic Lung Disease
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 10,672 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