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. 2022 NY Slip Op 04702
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2022

Chen v. Romona Keveza Collection LLC

This case involves cross-appeals concerning the application of the Freelance Isn't Free Act (FIFA) to a photography business (Joseph Chen Inc.) and a model (Dina Kozlovska) against Romona Keveza Collection LLC and related entities for alleged nonpayment. The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed whether Joseph Chen Inc. and Dina Kozlovska qualified as "freelance workers" under FIFA. The court modified a March 11, 2021 order by reinstating Kozlovska's claim against all defendants, finding that the lower court erred in dismissing it. It also reversed a June 30, 2021 order, granting RKC's motion to vacate a default judgment, citing public policy for deciding cases on the merits. Appeals regarding other orders and sanctions were dismissed as academic or nonappealable. The case highlights issues of first impression regarding FIFA, particularly concerning corporate entities and workers represented by agents.

Freelance Isn't Free ActFIFANonpaymentPhotography ServicesModeling ServicesIndependent ContractorDefault JudgmentDismissal of ClaimsAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. ADJ999430 (PAS 0009969) ADJ3798683 (LAO 0577997) ADJ1783473 (LAO 0785005)
Regular
Jan 31, 2013

KARIN CHEN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied applicant Karin Chen's petition to disqualify the administrative law judge. The WCAB adopted the judge's report, finding no legal grounds for disqualification. The petition was also procedurally deficient for untimely filing and lack of required affidavit. The WCAB suggested the applicant consult an Information and Assistance Officer due to apparent difficulties understanding workers' compensation law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantState Compensation Insurance FundDepartment of TransportationInformation and Assistance OfficerWCAB Rule 10452Affidavit
References
0
Case No. ADJ999430 (PAS 0009969) ADJ3798683 (LAO 0577997) ADJ1783473 (LAO 0785005)
Regular
May 22, 2014

KARIN CHEN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for disqualification filed by applicant Karin Chen against the State of California, Department of Transportation. The Board adopted and incorporated the administrative law judge's report, finding no grounds for disqualification. Therefore, the Board's order confirms that the petition is denied.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportdeny disqualificationLegally UninsuredAdjusting AgencyADJ999430KARIN CHENDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND
References
0
Case No. ADJ999430 (PAS 0009969), ADJ3798683 (LAO 0577997), ADJ1783473 (LAO 0785005)
Regular
Aug 15, 2014

KARIN CHEN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves a second Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant Karin Chen challenging a prior Appeals Board decision. The Board is dismissing this petition because a party cannot file successive petitions for reconsideration after the Board has already ruled on a matter without admitting new evidence. Such an action is procedurally improper and requires a petition for writ of review instead. Therefore, the current Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalConsecutive PetitionSuccessive PetitionPetition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeWrit of ReviewAppeals Board Decision*Crowe Glass Company v. I.A.C.*
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chen v. Major League Baseball

John Chen sued Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. and the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (MLB) under the FLSA and NYLL, claiming minimum wage violations for his unpaid volunteer work during the 2013 Baseball All Star Game's "FanFest". He sought conditional class certification. MLB moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Chen was a volunteer and that FanFest, as a seasonal "amusement or recreational establishment," was exempt from FLSA minimum wage requirements. The court granted MLB's motion to dismiss the FLSA claims, finding that FanFest qualified for the Section 13(a)(3) exemption due to its short operational period and status as a distinct physical place of business. Consequently, Chen's motion for collective certification was denied as moot, and his state-law NYLL claims were dismissed without prejudice.

FLSA ExemptionMinimum Wage ClaimsVolunteer EmploymentSeasonal OperationsDistinct Physical Place of BusinessEnterprise vs EstablishmentClass Action DenialState Law Claims DismissalJudicial DiscretionStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02405
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

Joseph Chen, Inc. v. Romona Keveza Collection LLC

This case, Joseph Chen, Inc. v Romona Keveza Collection LLC, addresses the application of the Freelance Isn't Free Act (FIFA) in New York. Plaintiffs Joseph Chen Inc., a photographer's company, and Dina Kozlovska, a fashion model, sought compensation from Romona Keveza Collection LLC (RKC) for unpaid services. The initial Supreme Court order, which denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, was appealed. The Appellate Division clarified that Chen Inc. qualified as a freelance worker under FIFA, even when utilizing assistants, and Kozlovska's prior agency involvement did not negate her freelance status. Consequently, the court modified the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability against RKC, thereby affirming their rights under the Freelance Isn't Free Act.

Freelance Isn't Free ActIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentAdministrative CodeUnpaid ServicesSingle-Person OrganizationAppellate DivisionLiabilityStatutory InterpretationFashion Industry
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07501
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2021

Chen v. 111 Mott LLC

The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court order, denying plaintiff Xiyi Chen's motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against H&M Contractors, Inc. The Court also granted H&M's cross motion to amend its answer and for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the action against H&M. The Appellate Division found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by not allowing H&M to amend its answer to assert the exclusive remedy defense under the Workers' Compensation Law. It further determined that a prior Workers' Compensation Board decision, finding H&M to be Chen's employer, barred re-litigation of this issue, thus making workers' compensation benefits the exclusive remedy.

Summary judgmentLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmative defenseLeave to amend answerCollateral estoppelAppellate reviewEmployer-employee relationshipExclusive remedyProcedural defect
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barak v. Chen

The plaintiffs, injured passengers, sued Kevin Chen and the Carmel defendants (Carmel Car and Limousine Service, Inc., Fast Operating Corp., and Avik Kabessa) for vicarious liability, alleging Chen was an employee. The Carmel defendants moved for summary judgment, contending Chen was an independent contractor. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment against Carmel and Fast Operating but later granted it for Kabessa. On appeal, the court reviewed factors for determining an employment relationship, concluding that Carmel and Fast Operating presented prima facie evidence of Chen's independent contractor status, which the plaintiffs' evidence failed to rebut sufficiently. Consequently, the appellate court determined that summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Carmel and Fast Operating should have been granted.

Independent ContractorVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipControl Test (Employment)Appellate DecisionCar Service CompanyPersonal InjuryAutomobile Accident
References
17
Case No. 01-16-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2017

Harry C. Crawford, III, Darrell Garrett and Theophilus Operating Company, L.L.C. v. Nguyen & Chen, LLP

The case involves an appeal by Harry C. Crawford III, Darrell Garrett, and Theophilus Operating Company LLC (collectively, the Theophilus defendants) against their former law firm, Nguyen & Chen LLP (N&C). N&C had successfully sued the Theophilus defendants for unpaid legal fees in a breach-of-contract claim and was awarded actual damages and attorney's fees. Separately, the trial court imposed a sanction of $1,200 on Crawford and Theophilus for an improperly filed pro se answer. The appellate court affirmed the judgment regarding the unpaid fees and attorney's fees but reversed and vacated the sanction award, citing the trial court's lack of authority and failure to provide due process or make necessary factual findings for imposing sanctions under its inherent powers or procedural rules.

Attorney's FeesSanctionsBreach of ContractExpert TestimonyDisclosure RequirementsPro Se RepresentationAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessInherent PowersTexas Civil Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Healey

Karin M. Roberts and Marjorie Roberts sued attorney James Sean Healey and his firm for negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations. The suit stemmed from Healey's failure to secure a protective order for Karin against her estranged husband, Daniel Charles Kennedy, who subsequently killed their two children and wounded Marjorie Roberts. The trial court granted summary judgment for Healey on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment for Karin's negligence, gross negligence, and DTPA claims, and for Marjorie's negligence and gross negligence claims, holding that Healey's failure to obtain a protective order was too attenuated from Kennedy's criminal acts to establish legal causation. However, the court reversed and remanded Karin's breach of contract and breach of warranty claims, and Marjorie's DTPA, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and bystander damages claims, finding that Healey's motion for summary judgment did not adequately address these specific grounds.

Attorney MalpracticeLegal NegligenceCausationSummary Judgment AppealDeceptive Trade Practices ActBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyAttorney-Client RelationshipBystander DamagesProtective Orders
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 50 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