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. 2015-1243 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C. v. Metlife Auto & Home

The case involves Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C., as assignee of Boris Goldbaum, suing Metlife Auto & Home for first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant had paid a reduced sum, arguing the remaining amount exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule and that one claim was subject to a policy deductible. During a nonjury trial, the parties stipulated to the plaintiff's prima facie case and timely denials. The defendant sought judicial notice of the workers' compensation fee schedule but failed to provide a witness to testify on its proper utilization or evidence for the deductible reduction. The Civil Court granted judgment to the plaintiff, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Term, Second Department. The Appellate Term noted that while judicial notice of the fee schedule is permissible, the party seeking it must provide sufficient information and notice to the adverse party, and the fee schedule alone doesn't prove proper utilization of codes or reduction due to a deductible without supporting evidence.

No-fault insuranceMedical billing disputeAppellate reviewJudicial noticeBurden of proofFee schedule applicationPolicy deductibleAssigned claimsCivil procedureEvidence admissibility
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02599 [171 AD3d 1277]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. A&T Healthcare, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board assumed administration of the insolvent Healthcare Providers Self-Insurance Trust, which had a deficit of $132.5 million. The Board initiated an action to recover the deficit from former employer-members, including Motherly Love Home Care Services Inc., who were jointly and severally liable. Motherly Love Home Care Services Inc. executed two settlement agreements but subsequently moved to vacate them, claiming a unilateral mistake by believing they had only signed duplicate copies of one agreement. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no basis for vacating the agreements given their distinct terms and the clear clarifications provided by the Board's counsel.

Workers' Compensation TrustInsolvencySettlement AgreementVacate AgreementUnilateral MistakeJoint and Several LiabilityAppellate ReviewContract PrinciplesHome Health CareEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hypolite v. Health Care Services of New York Inc.

The plaintiff, Allison Hypolite, on behalf of a putative class of home health aides, moved for conditional certification and notice to a proposed class under the FLSA. The defendants, HCS Healthcare and Agnes Shemia, opposed and moved to strike portions of the plaintiff's reply. The court denied the motion to strike. The court granted conditional certification for the period between January 1, 2015, and October 13, 2015, finding that the defendants failed to comply with revised FLSA regulations concerning the Home Health Aide Exemption during this time. However, the motion was denied for the period before January 1, 2015, as the plaintiff did not sufficiently demonstrate that other potential opt-in plaintiffs were similarly situated, given the fact-specific nature of the prior exemption rules. The plaintiff's request to extend the notice period to six years for state law claims was also denied.

FLSAConditional CertificationCollective ActionHome Health AidesOvertime PayWage and HourThird Party EmployerCompanionship Services ExemptionDepartment of Labor RegulationsRetroactive Effect
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. No. 95 Civ. 5338 (JGK)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1995

Petition of Home Ins. Co.

The Home Insurance Company (Home) filed a petition to compel arbitration against Svedala Industries Inc. (Svedala) under the Federal Arbitration Act concerning disputed retrospective premiums. Svedala cross-moved to dismiss, arguing the dispute arose under an insurance policy without an arbitration clause and that Home had previously invoked federal jurisdiction in a Wisconsin action. The court clarified that only the Southern District of New York could compel arbitration, as specified in the agreement. The court granted Home's petition, concluding that the broad arbitration clause in the Retrospective Premium Agreement covered the dispute, and denied Svedala's cross-motion, thereby ordering the parties to proceed with arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActRetrospective Premium AgreementWorkers Compensation PolicyMotion to Compel ArbitrationStay of ProceedingsFirst-Filed RuleContract InterpretationScope of Arbitration ClauseBad Faith Claim
References
15
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. 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

Coke v. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd.

Plaintiff Evelyn Coke, a former home healthcare attendant, sued her employers, Long Island Care At Home, Ltd. and Maryann Osborne, for unpaid minimum wages and overtime under the FLSA and New York Labor Law. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that home healthcare workers like the plaintiff are exempt from FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements under DOL regulations 29 C.F.R. §§ 552.6 and 552.109(a) concerning 'companionship services.' The Court, acknowledging compelling arguments against the regulations but bound by strong deference to federal agencies, upheld the validity of these longstanding DOL regulations. Consequently, the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and Plaintiff's FLSA claims were dismissed. The Court also declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

FLSA ExemptionCompanionship ServicesAgency EmployeesRegulatory ValidityChevron DeferenceStatutory InterpretationDomestic Service EmploymentMinimum Wage ClaimsOvertime ClaimsJudgment on Pleadings
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond v. Reilly Homes Construction Corp.

Plaintiffs Dale A. Diamond and James Panek sustained injuries at a construction site in East Fishkill while assembling a modular home. The accident occurred when a suspended roof section, being hoisted to allow for 'knee wall' installation, fell on them due to bracket failure. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants Reilly Homes Construction Corporation, Chelsea Homes, Inc., and Royal Crane, Inc. The Supreme Court initially denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Reilly Homes and Chelsea Homes, while also granting summary judgment to Royal Crane. The appellate court modified the orders, reversing the denials against Reilly Homes and Chelsea Homes and granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, but affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Royal Crane.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction Site AccidentFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHoist ApparatusElevation DifferentialWorker SafetyContractor LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Express Home Care Agency, Inc. v. VIP Health Services, Inc.

The defendant appeals an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, denying its motion for summary judgment regarding a breach of contract action. The plaintiff, a home health care worker provider, and the defendant, a home health care agency, had a contract where the plaintiff provided aides, and the defendant agreed to pay an hourly rate. The plaintiff sued for non-payment, while the defendant counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff provided unqualified aides. The court found the contract divisible, thus the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for qualified aides, affirming the denial of summary judgment for the first cause of action. However, the order was modified to dismiss the second, third, and fourth causes of action, which alleged unjust enrichment, as they were based on the same breach of contract allegations.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppealDivisible ContractUnjust EnrichmentHome Health CareQualified WorkersCounterclaimsContract LawAppellate Division
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,824 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