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

Henry v. Nannys for Grannys Inc.

Plaintiffs, a group of caregivers, initiated legal action against their employers, Nannys for Gran-nys Inc. and related entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning minimum wage, overtime, and spread-of-hours pay. The defendants sought to dismiss the amended complaint, primarily arguing that the plaintiffs fell under the "companionship" exemptions to both acts and challenging the newly added retaliation claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss concerning the companionship exemption, noting that determining exemption status is an affirmative defense to be addressed during discovery, not at the pleading stage. However, the court granted the dismissal of retaliation claims for specific plaintiffs (Francis, Dellemann, Morton, France, and Williams) due to either a lack of supporting factual allegations or the absence of a causal connection between protected activity and adverse action. The court also denied the defendants' request to dismiss portions of the FLSA claims based on the two-year statute of limitations, allowing the plaintiffs' general averment of willful violations to suffice at this stage.

FLSANYLLCompanionship ExemptionRetaliation ClaimMinimum WageOvertime PaySpread-of-Hours PayAffirmative DefenseMotion to DismissStatute of Limitations
References
21
Case No. ADJ13571625
Regular
Apr 12, 2023

MARITZA CANALES vs. EAST WEST EYE INSTITUTE, INC., NOVA CASUALTY COMPANY, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by Nova Casualty Company, the insurer for East West Eye Institute, Inc., challenging a finding of joint employment. The applicant, Maritza Canales, worked as a nanny/housekeeper, receiving simultaneous payments from East West/Premier Practice Management (PPM) and an individual, Naomi Kurata. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, adopting the judge's report which found sufficient connection to East West/PPM to establish employment based on payroll and benefits provided. The judge also found Naomi Kurata credible, rejecting arguments of witness contradiction and mischaracterization of facts regarding overtime pay.

JOINT EMPLOYMENTALTER EGOEMPLOYMENT FOLLOWS PAYROLLCORPORATE ENTITIESRESIDENTIAL EMPLOYEEHOMEOWNER'S INSURANCEWITNESS CREDIBILITYCOMPENSATION JUDGEPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05182 [208 AD3d 1211]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2022

Zhiying Wang v. Bin Wu

In this case, the plaintiff, Zhiying Wang, a former live-in nanny and housekeeper, sued defendants Bin Wu et al. alleging violations of Labor Law article 6 and the Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights. The defendants appealed a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing they did not reside at the Syosset property where service was made. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the process server's affidavits established prima facie evidence of proper service. The defendants' denials were deemed conclusory and insufficient to rebut the presumption, especially since their children lived at the Syosset property, which the court determined to be their 'dwelling place or usual place of abode' for service purposes.

Personal JurisdictionService of ProcessDomestic WorkersNannyHousekeeperAppellate ReviewAffidavit of ServiceUsual Place of AbodeLabor Law ComplianceNew York Courts
References
12
Case No. ADJ1925946 (VNO 0473346)
Regular
Feb 02, 2012

ELIZABETH GONIA vs. ROBIN, CARMACK & GONIA LLP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed an award for housekeeping services, finding the applicant failed to properly object to the utilization review denial for services requested after January 29, 2009. For services prior to that date, the Board found the applicant did not present sufficient medical evidence demonstrating the housekeeping was "medically necessary and reasonable" to treat her industrial injury. The applicant sustained multiple injuries in 1996, resulting in 100% permanent disability, and sought reimbursement for increased housekeeping due to her condition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElizabeth GoniaRobin Carmack & Gonia LLPState Compensation Insurance FundFindings and AwardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityMedical TreatmentHousekeeping ServicesUtilization Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 1996

Claim of Rochel v. Gardiner Manor Mall

A claimant, injured in 1982 as a general manager, was initially classified with a permanent partial disability. Due to a worsened condition, she was reclassified as permanently totally disabled in 1991, receiving ordinary compensation and housekeeping services. This determination was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer appealed, but the court found substantial medical evidence supported the Board's decision on the worsened disability. The court also upheld the award for housekeeping services under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13 (a), as the claimant's inability to perform household tasks was medically established.

permanent total disabilitypermanent partial disabilityworkers' compensation benefitshousekeeping servicesmedical evidencetreating physiciansindependent medical examinationstatutory interpretationdisability reclassificationjudicial review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kenton v. Wyman

Petitioner, a 35-year-old father of five, was enrolled full-time in the SEEK program at college. His public assistance grant was reduced, and housekeeping services discontinued, because he refused to seek employment that interfered with his schooling. The court examined whether the hearing officer should have disqualified herself (found she was qualified), whether the petitioner was entitled to public assistance while in the SEEK program (found he was not as he wasn't a minor or in an approved vocational program), and whether he required notice for discontinuance of housekeeping services (found he did, but he had a fair hearing). The court ultimately directed that the petitioner be reimbursed for welfare allowances deducted during the period leading up to the State's fair hearing decision, acknowledging a new regulation requiring continued payments during that time, but upheld the other decisions.

Public AssistanceWelfareSEEK ProgramFull-Time StudentEmployabilityFair HearingHousekeeping ServicesGrant ReductionArticle 78 ProceedingSocial Services Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1999

White v. Marriott Management Services

The plaintiff, a building service housekeeper at the New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens, allegedly sustained personal injuries while operating a "windblower" machine. The defendant, responsible for managing the hospital's housekeeping department, sought summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff was its special employee, limiting his remedy to Workers' Compensation benefits. The Supreme Court initially agreed and dismissed the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Board holds primary jurisdiction over determinations concerning the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law. The case was subsequently remitted to the Supreme Court with instructions to defer ruling on the summary judgment motion until the Workers' Compensation Board makes a final determination regarding the parties' rights.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentPrimary JurisdictionSpecial EmployeeAppellate ReviewKings CountyRemittalHospital EmployeeHousekeeping
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Nanni v. Source Corp.

Claimant suffered a work-related right carpel tunnel syndrome and right thumb injury in January 2003, leading to workers' compensation benefits. After surgery and a schedule loss of use award, the case was closed in 2004. It was reopened in 2006 for additional surgery and closed again in 2008. In July 2010, the case was reopened to consider an increased schedule loss of use. The workers' compensation carrier requested liability be shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found § 25-a inapplicable, but the Board modified this decision, finding the case was truly closed in August 2008 and shifted liability to the Special Fund. This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's finding of a truly closed case was supported by substantial evidence, thereby upholding the shift of liability.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftSchedule Loss of UseCase ReopeningPermanencyStatutory InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceRight Carpel Tunnel SyndromeRight Thumb Injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ9566317
Regular
May 18, 2017

MARIA SOTO vs. HOUSE OF NANNIES AGENCY SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Maria Soto's petition for reconsideration because it was filed late. The deadline to file was February 28, 2017, but the petition was not received until March 20, 2017. Untimely petitions are jurisdictional, meaning the Board lacks authority to consider them. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and it would have been denied on the merits even if timely.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictionalFindings and OrderService by Mail
References
4
Case No. VNO 0411435
Regular
Dec 27, 2007

REBECA WISE vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE, permissibly self-insured, administered by OCTAGON RISK SERVICES

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision that denied an industrial psychiatric injury claim, arguing that the psychiatrist's opinion was not substantial evidence. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the psychiatrist's opinion to be substantial medical evidence that supported the finding of non-industrial causation for the psychiatric injury. The Board also noted that the issue of housekeeping services was not ripe for reconsideration and a clerical error regarding apportionment would be corrected at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRebeca WiseCalifornia State University NorthridgeOctagon Risk ServicesVNO 0411435Opinion and Order Denying Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryLumbar Spine
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 47 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