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
Nov 08, 2012

Claim of Bailey v. Achieve Rehab & Nursing

Claimant, a nursing assistant, was granted workers' compensation benefits for a permanent partial disability. Following an independent medical examination, the employer's workers' compensation carrier repeatedly attempted to reopen the claim, citing counsel's failure to provide updates on claimant's job search. The Workers' Compensation Board denied these requests, emphasizing the lack of sufficient supporting evidence beyond non-response. Consequently, the Board assessed a $1,000 cost against the carrier under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) for pursuing proceedings without reasonable grounds after being clearly advised on evidentiary requirements. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the Board's assessment of costs.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWork SearchReopening ClaimCosts AssessmentAbuse of DiscretionIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCarrier Responsibility
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03114 [171 AD3d 1410]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Matter of Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor)

Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc. (HNR), a staffing agency, appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed HNR for additional unemployment insurance contributions for health care workers for the years 2008-2010, reversing an Administrative Law Judge's decision. HNR's main contention on appeal was that the Board was bound by a prior unappealed Administrative Law Judge decision from 1999, which had found HNR's health care workers to be independent contractors for an earlier audit period. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board is not bound by prior unappealed Administrative Law Judge decisions, especially when covering different audit periods and presenting additional factors of control.

Unemployment InsuranceStaffing AgencyHealth Care WorkersIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee StatusUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAdministrative Law Judge DecisionStare DecisisAudit PeriodAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1988

In re Nurse Care Registry, Inc.

Nurse Care Registry, Inc., an agency providing health care personnel, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that classified its workers as employees rather than independent contractors, making Nurse Care liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence of Nurse Care's control over key aspects of the services provided by the workers. This control included client contact, worker wages, and billing/collection, which were deemed indicative of an employer-employee relationship. The court relied on precedent establishing that such control warrants an employment finding, despite workers having full-time positions elsewhere and the agency not directly supervising daily work.

unemployment insuranceemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractoradministrative lawappellate reviewlabor lawagency staffingcontrol testsubstantial evidencehealth care industry
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huntington Hospital v. Huntington Hospital Nurses' Ass'n

Huntington Hospital initiated an action under the Federal Arbitration Act to partially vacate an arbitration award, while the Huntington Hospital Nurses’ Association cross-petitioned to confirm it. The dispute originated from the Hospital unilaterally granting two nurses, Betty Evans and Lynn Meyer, longevity pay credits exceeding the ten-year cap stipulated in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The arbitrator found the Hospital violated the CBA's sections on pay and exclusive bargaining rights. The arbitrator mandated the Hospital roll back excess credits and recover overpayments. The District Court denied the Hospital's petition, dismissing arguments regarding public policy, manifest disregard for law, and lack of award finality, ultimately confirming the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal Arbitration ActWage DisputesLongevity PayUnion RightsPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawContract Interpretation
References
22
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06800
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2021

Harris v. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Facility LLC

Plaintiff Mariantha Harris appealed an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, denying her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense based on the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the order, granting Harris's cross motion. Harris successfully established prima facie that she was not an employee of Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility LLC at the time of her accident, but rather was solely employed by nonparty Clear Choice, P.C. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that Harris was its special employee, with its reliance solely on the plaintiff performing duties at its nursing home being insufficient. Additionally, the court found the doctrine of judicial estoppel inapplicable because plaintiff had not secured a judgment in her favor in the prior proceeding, and the defendant's prematurity argument was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

Summary JudgmentExclusive RemedyEmployment StatusSpecial EmployeeSlip and FallJudicial EstoppelAppellate ProcedureCross MotionAffirmative DefenseClear Choice P.C.
References
6
Case No. 517446
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2014

MatterofBaileyvAchieveRehabandNursing

Claimant Cindy Bailey received workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained as a nursing assistant. An independent medical examination found her capable of working with restrictions. The employer's workers' compensation carrier repeatedly sought to reopen her claim based on her counsel's failure to provide an updated account of her employment search. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the requests, having previously warned the carrier that such a failure, without additional supporting evidence, was insufficient to reopen the claim. Consequently, the Board assessed $1,000 in costs against the carrier pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i). The employer and carrier appealed this assessment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationCosts AssessmentReopening ClaimWork Search InquiryPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate DivisionNew York LawAbuse of DiscretionCarrier LiabilityStipulation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2007

Claim of Torrance v. Loretto Rest Nursing Home

Claimant, a food service worker for Loretto Rest Nursing Home, suffered a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits. While receiving partial disability benefits, she took a light duty job with another employer. Loretto subsequently terminated her employment, citing a collective bargaining agreement provision against "moonlighting" while on leave. Claimant filed a discrimination claim under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found discrimination, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed. On appeal, the Board's decision was affirmed, as Loretto's termination was deemed a non-discriminatory application of a neutral company policy.

Discrimination ClaimWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPartial DisabilityLight Duty EmploymentTermination of EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementNeutral PolicyCausal NexusAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 120
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04542 [162 AD3d 878]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2018

Lorde v. Margaret Tietz Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr.

Thomas Lorde, a carpenter, was injured after falling from an inverted bucket while installing sheetrock at premises owned by Margaret Tietz Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. Lorde filed an action for personal injuries, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and moved for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Lorde appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Second Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Lorde failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as his testimony raised triable issues of fact regarding the availability of safety devices and whether his own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injury.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Elevated Work SiteSafety DevicesProximate CauseWorker NegligenceAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFalling Accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Concourse Nursing Home v. Engelstein

This action stems from an earlier labor dispute between Local 144 and Concourse Nursing Home regarding Medicaid reimbursements. Concourse sued defendants Daniel Engelstein and Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P. C., alleging wrongful interference with contractual relations, wrongful inducement of breach of contracts, prima facie tort, and negligent interference with contractual relationships, stemming from defendants' communications with the Department of Health (DOH) which led to DOH rescinding an additional $3.3 million reimbursement to Concourse. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting First Amendment immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which protects efforts to petition the government. The court found that defendants' actions were protected lobbying efforts and did not fall under the 'sham exception' since they were successful in their lobbying and not in competition with Concourse. Therefore, the court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross-motion to compel discovery, holding that defendants were entitled to First Amendment immunity.

Noerr-Pennington doctrineFirst AmendmentImmunityLobbying EffortsSham ExceptionTortious InterferenceContractual RelationsPrima Facie TortNegligent InterferenceMotion to Dismiss
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Robinson v. Lawrence Nursing Home

The decedent, a pot washer for Lawrence Nursing Home, was found stabbed to death on the employer's premises during his work shift. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially disallowed the claim for death benefits, concluding the death resulted from a personal act unrelated to his work activities, thereby overcoming the Section 21 presumption that an accident in the course of employment arose out of employment. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing that the evidence used by the board to overcome the presumption was uncorroborated hearsay. However, the appellate court affirmed the board's decision, asserting that the weight of the hearsay testimony and the reasonable inferences drawn from the circumstances were within the board's fact-finding province, providing substantial evidence for the disallowance. Consequently, the Board's disallowance of death benefits was upheld.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse of EmploymentArising out of EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityHearsay EvidenceSubstantial EvidencePersonal ActEmployer PremisesManslaughter
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,254 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