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. ADJ6991535
Regular
Dec 24, 2013

SILVER HERNANDEZ vs. QUALITY CAR CONNECTION, INC., PRESERVER INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by TOWER GROUP COMPANIES (formerly SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE/SUA)

This is a final order from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying a petition for reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the findings of the administrative law judge, finding no basis to overturn the original decision. The specific details of the original decision are not provided in this excerpt, but the petition for reconsideration by the applicant, Silver Hernandez, was unsuccessful. Therefore, the defendants, Quality Car Connection, Inc. and its insurer, remain the prevailing parties regarding the WCAB's denial of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge ReportDeny ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQuality Car ConnectionPreserver Insurance CompanyTower Group CompaniesSpecialty Underwriters Alliance/SUAADJ6991535Los Angeles District Office
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06033
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

Matter of Bernal v. New York Apple Car Serv.

Claimant's spouse, a cab driver dispatched by New York Apple Car Service (NYACS), was fatally stabbed while working. Claimant filed for workers' compensation death benefits. NYACS, a member of the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF), disputed liability, contending the decedent was a black car operator, making the New York Black Car Operator's Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF) responsible. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision that the decedent was an independent livery driver, holding the ILDBF carrier liable. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, rejecting the argument that the vehicle's affiliation with the NYBCOICF was determinative and relying on precedent set in _Matter of Cisnero v Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund_.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsIndependent Livery DriverBlack Car OperatorFund LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDispatch ServiceEmployer ResponsibilityVehicle Affiliation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1992

Claim of Le Fevre v. Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Worker's Compensation Board decision finding an employer-employee relationship between a claimant and Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc. The claimant, a franchisee of Tel-A-Car's two-way radio dispatch transportation service, was required to operate a specific luxury car, lease a radio, charge Tel-A-Car's set fares, and abide by strict operational rules and a dress code. Despite some freedom in work hours, the Board based its determination of an employer-employee relationship on Tel-A-Car's significant control over car type, radio leasing, fare setting, and dispatching. The appellate court found these incidents of control sufficient to support the Board's determination. Furthermore, the court affirmed the decision and declined to consider a new argument regarding the State Franchise Act, as it was not raised before the Board.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation LawFranchise agreementControl testAppellate procedureFactual issueScope of employmentTransportation industryNew York lawGeneral Business Law
References
5
Case No. 532689
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Monica Patricia Hidalgo Bernal (Poncefarfan, (dec'd) Otto)

Monica Patricia Hidalgo Bernal filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits after her spouse, a cab driver, was fatally stabbed while dispatched by New York Apple Car Service (NYACS). NYACS, a member of the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF), controverted the claim, contending the decedent was a black car operator, thus making the New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF) liable. The Workers' Compensation Board found the decedent to be an independent livery driver, holding NYACS and its ILDBF carrier responsible. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, referencing Matter of Cisnero v Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund, and reiterated that the vehicle's affiliation with NYBCOICF does not negate liability when the dispatch originated from an independent livery base.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsIndependent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF)New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF)Livery DriverBlack Car OperatorStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2000

Claim of Spurck v. Avis Rent-A-Car

Claimant, concurrently employed by Avis Rent-A-Car and First Call, suffered a work-related compensable injury during his employment with Avis in February 1995. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the case and determined claimant's average weekly wage based on wages from both concurrent employments. Avis sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) for awards made when claimant’s wages at a subsequent employer (Autohaus South Volkswagen, Inc.) exceeded his Avis wages or pre-injury rate. Both the WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied reimbursement, a determination that Avis and its carrier appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that Avis's liability was not greater under WCL § 14 (6) than it would have been under prior law, which is the relevant inquiry for Special Fund reimbursement.

Workers CompensationSpecial Disability FundConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageReimbursementEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewReduced EarningsNew York Workers Compensation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arteaga v. ISS Quality Service

Claimant, a maintenance worker hired to replace striking employees of ISS Quality Service, was assaulted and sustained injuries. A dispute arose regarding whether claimant was an employee of ISS or Contemporary Graphics Group (CGG), a temporary staffing agency. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found claimant solely employed by CGG, but the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, concluding claimant was a general employee of CGG and a special employee of ISS, apportioning liability equally. ISS and its carrier appealed the special employment designation as irrational, but the Board's decision was affirmed.

Employer-Employee RelationshipSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentWorkers' Compensation LiabilityApportionment of LiabilityTemporary Staffing AgencyAssault in EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceBoard Decision ReviewJudicial Review
References
10
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01643
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Quality Building Construction, LLC v. Jagiello Construction Corp.

This case concerns an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award and discharge a bond. Jagiello Construction Corp. appealed an order that denied its cross-petition to vacate an arbitration award, which Quality Building Construction, LLC sought to confirm. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The Court held that Jagiello failed to meet its "heavy burden" to establish grounds for vacatur under CPLR 7511(b)(1). It found that Jagiello had sufficient notice of the arbitration hearing and was not prejudiced by a scrivener's error in the demand for arbitration that misidentified the claimant.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate PracticeDue ProcessNotice RequirementsScrivener's ErrorPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator Authority
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Colin v. Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc.

The claimant, a for-hire driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an automobile accident, naming Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc. and Yolette Kernisan as employers. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the claimant was an independent contractor of Express. On appeal, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the finding that the claimant was not an employee of Yolette Kernisan and remitting the matter for further consideration regarding Kernisan's relationship with the claimant, citing an improper control standard. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding of no employment relationship with Express, supported by substantial evidence regarding drivers supplying their own vehicles and expenses, and ability to work for other companies.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentRadio-Dispatched Car ServiceVehicle OwnershipControl TestRemittalAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2001

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.

Proctor & Gamble Company (P&G), a worldwide distributor of consumer products, sued numerous parties including Quality King Distributors, Inc., Omnisource International, Inc., and Neal Rose, alleging they were involved in mixing, bottling, selling, and distributing counterfeit Head & Shoulders shampoo, in violation of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act. P&G moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for trademark infringement. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, arguing P&G had unclean hands, abandoned its trademark rights, and that Neal Rose lacked individual liability. The court granted P&G's motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendants used a counterfeit of P&G's trademark in commerce, which created a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court denied the defendants' cross-motions, concluding that the unclean hands defense was inapplicable, P&G had not abandoned its trademark, and there was sufficient evidence for Rose's personal liability.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActCounterfeit GoodsSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DefenseTrademark AbandonmentCorporate Officer LiabilityHead & ShouldersConsumer ConfusionInterstate Commerce
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Eland Motor Car Co.

The case concerns whether a garage owner, Eland Motor Car Company, could assert a lien under Lien Law § 184 (1) on vehicles owned by International Automobiles, Ltd. despite Eland's principal, Andrew Bach, providing additional non-repair services and commissions. National Union Fire Insurance Company, a judgment creditor of International, challenged the lien, arguing their interest was superior. The lower courts found that the extensive business relationship precluded the lien. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that additional services do not defeat a valid garage keeper's lien for maintenance, repair, and storage, and remitted the matter for a determination of the exact outstanding debt.

Garage Owner's LienLien Law § 184Bailee of Motor VehiclesJudgment Creditor RightsPriority of LiensVehicle Repair and StorageCommercial PrinciplesArtisan's LienCPLR 5225 (b)Appellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 989 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