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. 536000
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2024

Matter of Elhannon Wholesale Nursery, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor)

Elhannon Wholesale Nursery, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found the company liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for its H-2A agricultural workers from 2014 to 2016. The contributions included remuneration for housing and utilities provided to these workers. Elhannon argued for the retroactive application of a 2019 amendment to Labor Law § 564, which excluded H-2A workers from the definition of "employment," but the court found no clear legislative intent for retroactivity. The company also challenged the Board's authority to assess contributions for workers ineligible for benefits and disputed the valuation of housing and utility remuneration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that an employer's obligation to pay contributions is independent of employee eligibility for benefits and upholding the Commissioner's method for calculating remuneration.

Unemployment InsuranceH-2A WorkersAgricultural LaborRetroactive ApplicationStatutory InterpretationLabor LawPayroll TaxEmployer ContributionsRemuneration ValuationHousing Benefits
References
15
Case No. SFO 0438557 SFO 0438562
Regular
May 05, 2008

LISA BURKE vs. WINTERLAND PRODUCTIONS, HARTFORD INDEMNITY & ACCIDENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether reimbursed expenses should be included in calculating an applicant's temporary disability indemnity rate. The Board reversed the prior award, ruling that reimbursed expenses for meals, lodging, and fuel are special expenses, not remuneration, and therefore should not be included in calculating the applicant's average weekly wage. The decision clarifies that such reimbursements do not constitute "advantages received by the injured employee as part of his remuneration" under Labor Code section 4454.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary Disability IndemnityReimbursed ExpensesEarnings CalculationLabor Code Section 4454RemunerationSpecial ExpensesAverage Weekly WageCumulative TraumaConcert Tour Salesperson
References
9
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05818
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Bebbino (Clare Rose Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal by Clare Rose Inc., a beer wholesaler, from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that 104 current and former employees, represented by Local 812 IBT, were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits despite receiving strike benefits and a weekly stipend from their unions during a strike in 2017. The employer contended that these payments constituted remuneration, rendering the claimants ineligible. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the strike benefits under 12 NYCRR 490.2 (b) did not constitute remuneration and that the claimants were totally unemployed, as the payments were not conditioned on rendering services.

Unemployment InsuranceStrike BenefitsTotal UnemploymentRemunerationLabor LawUnion StrikeAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawEligibility for BenefitsUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galligan v. St. Vincent's Hospital

This case involves an appeal regarding the employment status of a student nurse, specifically whether she is considered an employee for the purposes of common-law rights versus the Workmen's Compensation Law. The majority opinion reversed a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, dismissing the complaint. They concluded that the student nurse was under the control of the hospital and that the benefits received constituted remuneration, thereby establishing an employment relationship. A dissenting opinion argued that the jury was entitled to find that control remained with the nursing school and that the remuneration was insufficient to bar a common-law action, citing *Sivertsen v. State of New York* to emphasize the need for factual findings.

Student NurseEmployment StatusMaster and Servant DoctrineWorkmen's Compensation LawCommon Law RightsJury Verdict ReversalHospital LiabilityControl TestRemunerationAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Chorekchan

The claimant, a poll worker for the New York City Board of Elections, sought unemployment insurance benefits which included remuneration for her election day services. The Department of Labor initially excluded this remuneration, but an Administrative Law Judge reversed. The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board then reversed the ALJ, ruling that the poll worker services did not constitute covered employment. The claimant appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that the Board of Elections did not exercise sufficient control over the means used by the poll workers to establish an employer-employee relationship under unemployment insurance law beyond statutory mandates.

unemployment insurancepoll workerelection lawemployer-employee relationshipcovered employmentadministrative appealjudicial reviewlabor lawstatutory interpretationNew York courts
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Forbes

Claimant, a psychiatric social worker, was reclassified as an 'independent contractor' by Brooklyn Center for Families in Crisis, Inc. for the last six months of her employment, receiving an hourly rate. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the Center exercised sufficient direction and control over her work, establishing her status as an employee and thus her eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. Despite the re-designation, the claimant continued to treat the same patients in the same manner on the Center’s premises, worked under a supervisor, and the Center established the fees. The court affirmed the Board’s ruling, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant and similarly situated individuals were employees of the Center.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationPsychiatric Social WorkerEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardEmployee BenefitsEmployment StatusAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2004

In re Human Performance, Inc.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians, classifying them as employees. Woodstock argued they were not employees. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work, including setting fees, scheduling services, handling complaints, providing workers’ compensation coverage, and supplying the workspace, equipment, and supplies.

Unemployment InsuranceMassage TherapistsAestheticiansEmployer-Employee RelationshipWellness CenterDay SpaIndependent ContractorWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor LawAppeal Board Decision
References
1
Case No. ADJ7870189
Regular
Nov 09, 2018

ALDO RODRIGUEZ vs. ALADDIN CUSTOM POOLS, INC., IMPERIUM, administered by ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS, SERGIO CHIQUETE, JUANA CHIQUETE, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE c/o FARMERS INSURANCE, SILVERIO QUIRARTE, uninsured, UNINSURED EMPLOYER BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case clarifies employer liability for an injured worker in the context of unlicensed contractors. The Appeals Board found applicant Aldo Rodriguez was solely employed by Silverio Quirarte, an unlicensed contractor, for work performed on May 15, 2010. Applicant did not meet the hours threshold to be considered an employee of the homeowners (Chiquetes) under Labor Code Section 3352(a)(8), thus excluding them as employers. Aladdin Custom Pools was also dismissed as applicant had no direct employment or remuneration from them.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundUEBTFemployer identityindustrial injuryright eye injuryleft eye injurypsyche injuryjackhammer accidentAladdin Custom PoolsSilverio Quirarte
References
17
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07819 [166 AD3d 1276]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2018

Matter of Kowalik (Commissioner of Labor)

Mandi C. Kowalik appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled her ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits due to her failure to file a valid original claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision. The court found that Kowalik did not earn any wages during the required base periods for her claim, which was effective July 3, 2017. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented that would qualify her for an extension of the base period under Labor Law § 527 (3). The court emphasized that remuneration is deemed earned on the date of payment and dismissed her due process argument.

Unemployment InsuranceClaim EligibilityBase PeriodValid Original ClaimLabor LawAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentAffirmed DecisionPro SeRemuneration
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 1984

In re the Claim of Hagan

Claimant, a dock worker, sustained a compensable back injury in August 1982 and received workers’ compensation benefits through 1983. In February 1984, he resigned from his position to accept a lump sum severance payment due to an employer reorganization. He subsequently filed for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled him ineligible, finding that workers’ compensation payments are not considered remuneration for the base period. Claimant's argument for an extended base period under a recently amended Labor Law was rejected because the amendment took effect after his claim and was not retroactive. The decision was affirmed.

unemployment benefitseligibilityseverance paymentcompensable injurybase period extensionstatutory amendmentretroactive effectresignationemployer reorganizationlabor law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 31 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