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 00221 [201 AD3d 1140]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of New Team, LLC (Commissioner of Labor)

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board assessed New Team, LLC for additional unemployment insurance contributions, determining an employment relationship with its brand ambassadors based on an audit from July 2010 to September 2013. New Team appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's ruling. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that New Team exercised sufficient supervision, direction, or control over the brand ambassadors to establish an employment relationship for unemployment insurance purposes. The decision highlighted factors such as New Team's recruitment, training, scheduling, event monitoring, and reporting requirements for brand ambassadors.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorBrand AmbassadorsUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate Division Third DepartmentSubstantial EvidenceLabor Department AuditControl TestMarketing Services
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04069 [195 AD3d 1342]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Quaranta v. Special Teams, Inc.

Vincent Quaranta, the appellant, had an established workers' compensation claim. His employer and carrier alleged he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by knowingly making material misrepresentations to obtain benefits, citing surveillance video footage. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found no violation, the Workers' Compensation Board disagreed, imposing both a mandatory penalty and a discretionary permanent disqualification from wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that Quaranta feigned the extent of his disability during a July 2017 independent medical examination by misrepresenting his need for a cane, thereby upholding the violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision to disqualify Quaranta from future wage replacement benefits due to the egregious nature of his conduct.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violationMaterial misrepresentationFraudulent claimsDisqualification from benefitsWage replacement benefitsSurveillance video evidenceIndependent medical examination (IME)Antalgic gaitUse of assistive devicesAppellate review
References
9
Case No. ADJ7597520
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

MAZIO ROYSTER vs. NFL EUROPE, TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior ruling that it has jurisdiction over an applicant's injury claim against NFL Europe. This decision was based on the finding that the applicant's contract of hire was formed in California, even though the injury occurred out-of-state. The Board also held that any forum selection clause in the contract would not be enforced as it contravenes California public policy favoring workers' compensation rights when the contract of hire is made within the state. The WCAB's reasoning relied heavily on statutory provisions and case law establishing California's jurisdiction when the contract formation occurs in California.

WCABNFL EuropeTIG Specialty Insurance CompanyZenith Insuranceindustrial injuryprofessional athletecontract of hireforum selection clausejurisdictionpublic policy
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Laird v. All Pro Air Delivery, Inc.

A workers' compensation claim was filed by a decedent's widow after her husband's work-related death in 1998. A dispute arose regarding whether the employer's group self-insurance carrier, Team Transportation Workers’ Compensation Trust, had properly terminated the employer's coverage prior to the accident. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board consistently found that the carrier failed to provide sufficient proof of service of the termination notice to the employer, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (3-a) (3). The Board's amended decision on February 23, 2006, reiterated this finding, noting a lack of evidence linking the certified mail receipt to the return receipt. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, holding that the carrier did not strictly comply with the statutory mandates for insurance termination, citing insufficient documentation and testimony regarding proper service of the termination notice to the employer.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance Policy TerminationGroup Self-Insurance PlanNotice RequirementsCertified Mail ProofAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationBurden of ProofAdministrative DecisionSufficiency of Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Steam Pipe Explosion at 41st St. & Lexington Ave.

This dissent arises from an appeal in consolidated pretrial proceedings concerning damages from a 2007 steam pipe explosion owned by Con Ed. Con Ed, a defendant, sought discovery from Team Industrial Services, Inc. (also a defendant) regarding records from the 2001 "Diamond Shamrock litigation" in Texas, arguing similarity in causation due to excessive sealant application. The Supreme Court denied this motion after an in camera review, finding insufficient similarity. The appellate majority reversed, granting Con Ed's motion to compel, but the dissenting judge, Friedman, J.P., argues this was an abuse of discretion. The dissent emphasizes the Supreme Court's thorough analysis of the distinct mechanisms of causation in the two incidents, concluding that the common factor of excessive sealant is superficial and the Diamond Shamrock files are irrelevant to the current matter.

Discovery DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionIn Camera ReviewConsolidated ProceedingsSteam Pipe ExplosionSealant ApplicationCausation MechanismPrior Litigation SimilarityPretrial Proceedings
References
6
Case No. ADJ113545 (OAK 0241908)
Regular
Aug 25, 2014

KEVIN BRACKEN vs. TEAM COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, for CAL COMP, In Liquidation, Adjusted By SEDGWICK CMS

In *Bracken v. Team Commercial Construction*, the applicant sought reconsideration of a Finding of Fact that barred his psychiatric injury claim under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The applicant argued that his employment duration exceeded the required six months for a compensable consequence psychiatric injury. However, stipulated facts revealed the applicant worked for the employer for less than the six-month period stipulated by the statute. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the psychiatric claim barred.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurycompensable consequence injurysix-month employment requirementpetition for reconsiderationFinding of FactReport and Recommendationstipulationsjackhammer operatorspecific injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ6990080
Regular
Jan 04, 2012

JEROME ALLEN vs. MILWAUKEE BUCKS, DALLAS MAVERICKS, CLEVELAND CAVALIERS, DENVER NUGGETS, INDIANA PACERS, MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES, TIG INSURANCE As Administered By RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT (For All Teams)

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Jerome Allen against several NBA teams and their insurer. The Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. This reconsideration is for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications in this matter should be directed to the Board's Office of the Commissioners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationFactual and Legal IssuesStatutory Time ConstraintsFurther ProceedingsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersAlfonso J. MoresiFrank M. Brass
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02452 [160 AD3d 711]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2018

Marulanda v. Vance Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, Jose Marulanda, a construction worker, was injured after falling from a scaffold lacking safety rails. He sued Vance Associates, LLC, the building owner, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Vance Associates, LLC, in turn, filed a third-party action against the general contractor, U.S. Team, Inc., for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court initially denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and the defendant's motion for contractual indemnification. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and the defendant's motion for contractual indemnification against the general contractor.

Scaffold AccidentConstruction Worker InjuryLabor Law 240(1) ViolationSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationAppellate Division Second DepartmentPersonal InjurySafety DevicesPremises LiabilityGeneral Contractor Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. National Football League

Orlando Brown, a former NFL player, and his wife Mira Brown, sued the National Football League (NFL) for personal injuries. Brown's career ended after an NFL referee negligently threw a weighted penalty flag, striking him in the eye. The case was removed from New York state court to federal court. The NFL moved to dismiss and compel arbitration, arguing the claims were preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA and related to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Plaintiffs cross-moved to remand, asserting their claims were independent state law torts. The Court denied the NFL's motion, finding the duties alleged were general state law duties, not solely derived from the CBA. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court.

Personal InjuryNegligenceFederal PreemptionLabor Management Relations Act (LMRA)Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)ArbitrationRemand to State CourtDuty of CareVicarious LiabilityAssumption of Risk
References
31
Case No. ADJ6676904
Regular
May 26, 2010

LOUIS BULLARD vs. CLEVELAND BROWNS, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS, Baltimore Ravens

This case involves a professional athlete claiming workers' compensation injuries from two NFL teams. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal after the applicant's death during the pendency of the case. The trial date was vacated, and the matter was returned to the trial level for a priority conference. This is due to the need to address accrued benefits payable to dependents and to potentially identify and join them as parties.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardProfessional AthleteMandatory Settlement ConferenceContinued to TrialJoinder as Party-DefendantFurther DiscoveryApplicant's DeathAccrued and Unpaid BenefitsSurviving Dependents
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 74 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