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

Williamsbridge Manor Nursing Home v. Local 144 Division of 1199, National Health & Human Services Employers Union

Plaintiff Williamsbridge Manor Nursing Home sought to permanently enjoin an arbitration hearing related to the suspension of its employee, Cynthia Sullivan. The defendant, New York’s Health & Human Services Employers Union 1199/SEIU, AFL-CIO, opposed this motion and cross-moved for summary judgment and/or dismissal. The core issue revolved around whether an obligation to arbitrate survived the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in October 1997, given that the incident leading to Sullivan's suspension occurred in December 1998. The court determined that the dispute did not arise under the expired CBA, nor was there an implied-in-fact agreement to arbitrate post-expiration disputes, as the plaintiff's conduct was inconsistent with implied consent. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff's petition was not moot, despite the arbitration having already taken place, because the court retains power to act until an arbitration award is confirmed. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to permanently enjoin the arbitration was granted, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss for mootness was denied.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCBA ExpirationImplied-in-fact ContractFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActPermanent InjunctionMootnessEmployee SuspensionJudicial Determination
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1979

Gessino v. D'Andraia

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a decision finding that a claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The claimant sustained an injury while assisting the employer’s brother, under the belief that these activities were at the implied request and for the benefit of the employer. The Board concluded that based on credible evidence and the claimant's testimony, the injury constituted an accidental injury within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryBoard DecisionClaimant BeliefEmployer BenefitSubstantial EvidenceAppeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torre v. Logic Technology, Inc.

The claimant, employed by a contractor for General Electric, sustained a spinal cord injury while participating in a fitness class at the G.E. Fitness Center during work hours. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board found that the injury arose from and occurred during his employment, leading to an award of workers’ compensation benefits. The employer's workers' compensation carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination. It concluded that the employer sponsored the activity by offering membership fee reimbursements and by encouraging participation for client development, thus establishing a work-related connection under Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 (1) despite the voluntary, off-duty nature of the activity.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentOff-Duty Athletic ActivityEmployer SponsorshipSpinal Cord InjuryFitness CenterEmployee BenefitsReimbursementClient DevelopmentSubstantial Evidence
References
7
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. 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
3
Case No. ADJ11795460
Regular
Oct 17, 2019

GABRIEL MORA vs. SB ENTERTAINMENT VENTURES INC. dba 340 RESTAURANT AND NIGHTCLUB, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant alleges injury during an altercation at work. The employer, SB Entertainment Ventures Inc., denied the claim, asserting the applicant was the initial aggressor. The applicant sought a video of the incident, which the employer failed to produce despite a subpoena and court order. The WCJ issued a finding that the video showed the applicant was not the initial aggressor, implying the employer's non-production led to this conclusion. The Appeals Board treated the employer's petition as a request for reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's finding, and remanded the case. This action was taken because the prior hearing lacked sufficient admitted evidence to support the finding, and due process requires a proper evidentiary record before determining such a threshold issue as initial aggressor status.

WCABRemoval PetitionReconsiderationInitial AggressorDue ProcessSubpoena Duces TecumAdverse InferenceWillful SuppressionBad Faith ActionsSanctions
References
13
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a June 16, 2009, determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB's determination reversed an earlier administrative law judge's decision, finding that the NYCTA had committed an improper labor practice by unilaterally implementing new standards for off-duty secondary employment without negotiating with the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100. PERB directed the NYCTA to make whole certain employees and subsequently filed a cross-petition to enforce its order. The court found that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence, noting that an employer's restriction on nonworking time is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Taylor Law. Consequently, the court confirmed PERB's determination, denied the NYCTA's petition, dismissed the proceeding on the merits, and granted PERB's cross-petition for enforcement of its remedial order.

Public EmploymentLabor RelationsCollective BargainingImproper Labor PracticeOff-Duty Secondary EmploymentCivil Service LawTaylor LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Law
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 10,403 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