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
Jan 21, 1992

Saitanis Enterprises, Inc. v. Hines

The petitioner initiated a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge a determination by the New York State Department of Labor. The Department of Labor's determination, dated January 21, 1992, found that the petitioner failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to its employees in violation of Labor Law § 220. The court confirmed the Department of Labor's determination, finding that the record supported the finding of underpayment and that the calculation of underpayment was supported by substantial evidence. The court also deemed the petitioner's argument regarding worker classification as untimely, noting that challenges to prevailing wage rate schedules must be made within four months of receipt. Consequently, the proceeding was dismissed on the merits, with costs.

prevailing wagesunderpaymentDepartment of Laborcredibility determinationsworker classificationtimeliness of challengeadministrative agencysubstantial evidencelabor law violationjudicial review
References
5
Case No. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Case No. ADJ10013565
Regular
Nov 05, 2018

ANTONIO GUZMAN vs. KLEAN SWEEP PARKING LOT SERVICE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted Trucare Pharmacy's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinding the prior order to stay Trucare's lien. The WCAB found that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof that Trucare was "controlled" by a criminally charged provider as defined by Labor Code section 139.21(a)(3). Specifically, there was no evidence that John Garbino, the criminally charged provider, was an officer, director, or 10% shareholder of Trucare Pharmacy. Therefore, Trucare's lien is not subject to a stay under Labor Code section 4615 and the case is returned for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 4615criminally charged providerjoint venturepartnershiplien claimantprovider statuscontrolled entitystatutory interpretationdue processadministrative director
References
13
Case No. ADJ9893563
Regular
Aug 19, 2019

ISRAEL ANGULO RUGERIO vs. ANS CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a decision regarding TruCare Pharmacy's liens. The prior decision found the defendant failed to prove TruCare was subject to a statutory stay, as it did not demonstrate a controlling indicted provider under Labor Code section 139.21. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and returned the case to the trial level for consolidation with a master file proceeding addressing common issues concerning TruCare and Labor Code section 4615. This consolidation aims to ensure consistent rulings, due process, and judicial economy given the complex factual and legal issues involved.

TruCare PharmacyLabor Code section 4615WCJPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of ConsolidationSpecial Adjudication UnitMaster Filelien claimantindictmentstay
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Labor Relations Board v. Goodman

This case involves an appeal concerning the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Appellants, the NLRB and the Union, challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that shielded James M. Goodman and Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation (GASC) from labor law liabilities based on Goodman's Chapter 7 discharge. The District Court affirmed that Goodman's personal discharge protects him from pre-petition monetary and non-monetary obligations arising from a rejected collective bargaining agreement. However, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that GASC was also shielded, concluding that Goodman's discharge does not protect GASC from alleged obligations. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including a determination of the alter-ego status of Goodman and GASC under applicable labor law standards.

BankruptcyChapter 7National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementDischargeable DebtsPrimary JurisdictionLabor LawEmployer Obligations
References
16
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06406
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Gabel (Bankers Life & Cas. Co.--Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Christopher M. Gabel, an insurance broker, sought unemployment insurance benefits after his agreement with Bankers Life and Casualty Company (BLC) was terminated. While an Administrative Law Judge initially denied benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, ruling that BLC was liable for contributions. The Board found that Gabel's services were not statutorily exempted under Labor Law § 511 (21) because his actual work was inconsistent with the contract's statutory provisions, and BLC maintained sufficient supervision and control to constitute an employment relationship. BLC appealed, contending its written agreement met the Labor Law requirements and that Gabel was an independent contractor. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the actual performance of services must conform to the statutory provisions, not just their inclusion in the contract. The court also found substantial evidence that BLC exercised significant control over Gabel's work, thus establishing an employment relationship.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipInsurance AgentLabor Law § 511 (21)Unemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCommon-Law TestEmployer Control
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06405 [199 AD3d 1196]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Paratore (Bankers Life & Cas. Co.--Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Paul Paratore, an insurance broker and agent, filed for unemployment insurance benefits after his relationship with Bankers Life and Casualty Company (BLC) ended. The Department of Labor determined him eligible, a decision affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found his services were not statutorily exempt and that BLC exercised sufficient control to establish an employment relationship under unemployment insurance law. BLC appealed, arguing its agreement satisfied Labor Law § 511 (21) and challenging the employment relationship finding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, agreeing that the statutory requirements were not met and that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment relationship between BLC and the claimant.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorInsurance IndustryLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewControl TestStatutory InterpretationAgent AgreementBenefits Eligibility
References
10
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. ADJ1884066
Regular
Nov 19, 2008

RICHARD REED vs. BAYSIDE INSULATION AND CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release where the settlement expressly excluded future Labor Code section 139.5 benefits. The defendant argued this exclusion was an error, as they intended to settle vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found the exclusion unnecessary and legally inconsequential as Labor Code section 139.5 did not apply to this applicant's injury date, and job displacement benefits are covered under a different section.

Compromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseLabor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationsupplemental job displacement benefitsLabor Code section 4658.5future benefitsindustrial injuryupper extremitiesinsulator
References
0
Case No. ADJ9932467
Regular
Oct 16, 2017

THERESA MCFARLAND vs. REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision that "Return-To-Work" supplemental payments under Labor Code section 139.48 are not "compensation" as defined by Labor Code section 3207. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to a second penalty under Labor Code section 5814 for the employer's delay in providing a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit voucher, as that delay did not cause a delay in a compensable benefit. The Board found that the applicant's penalty claim for the voucher delay was already resolved and that imposing a second penalty for a non-compensable benefit delay would be unfair and against the principle of balancing justice.

Labor Code section 139.48Return-To-Work supplemental paymentscompensation definitionLabor Code section 3207Labor Code section 5814 penaltyLabor Code section 4658.7 voucherSupplemental Job Displacement Benefitcompromise and release agreementGage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.unreasonable delay
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 8,349 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