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
Apr 24, 2006

Claim of Sang Hwan Park v. Lee

Claimant, a delivery truck owner-operator, filed a workers' compensation claim against Semok Lee, for whom he delivered produce, after sustaining an L4-L5 disc herniation. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined no employer-employee relationship existed, closing proof without Semok Lee's testimony. Claimant appealed, arguing due process violations and a lack of substantial evidence to support the WCLJ's findings. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding no due process breach as claimant waived the issue by not timely objecting. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that no employer-employee relationship existed, citing claimant's ownership of his truck, payment of expenses, and self-employment status on tax returns.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceIndependent ContractorDelivery TruckBack InjuryTax ReturnsWaiverAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 1999

Claim of Jhoda v. Mauser Service, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on December 3, 1999. The Board ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and Mauser Service, Inc., doing business as Nu Nu Car Service. The claimant, a livery car driver, was shot in March 1993 while on a call directed by the corporation’s dispatcher and asserted a workers’ compensation claim. The corporation contested the claim, arguing it had no relationship with the claimant and that its drivers were independent contractors. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s findings, concluding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the employer-employee relationship and the accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractor disputeLivery car driver injuryRadio-dispatched service liabilitySubstantial evidence reviewCredibility findingControl test for employmentAccident arising out of employmentAppellate affirmanceWorkers' compensation appeal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Communications Workers of America/Graduate Employees Union (CWA) petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to be certified as the bargaining representative for graduate and teaching assistants at State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. Initially, PERB's Director dismissed the petition, concluding that these assistants were not 'public employees' under the Taylor Law, applying a balancing test. PERB subsequently rejected this balancing test, establishing a new standard focused on the existence of a regular and substantial employment relationship not explicitly excluded by the Legislature. Under this new standard, PERB reversed the Director's decision, determining that graduate and teaching assistants are covered employees and constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. SUNY then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, arguing legal error in PERB's adopted test and that collective bargaining for academic issues violated public policy. The court upheld PERB's interpretation as reasonable and legally permissible, affirming PERB's determination and dismissing SUNY's petition.

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Keles v. Santos

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied a claimant's request for workers' compensation benefits. The claimant, primarily employed by Plymouth Beef Company, sought benefits for an injury allegedly sustained while performing inspection work for Augusto B. Santos, who owned a cleaning business at the same facility. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found no employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and Santos, leading to the disallowance of the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting the lack of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors considered included Santos's lack of control over the claimant's work, the cessation of payment to the claimant months before the accident, and the gratuitous nature of the claimant's continued services, which did not establish an employment bond.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRight to ControlMethod of PaymentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionGratuitous ServicesScope of Employment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Claim of Rainone v. 36th Street Terminal Corp.

This case is an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed August 4, 1993, which found an employer-employee relationship between the decedent and Universal Maritime Service Corporation, in addition to 36th Street Terminal Corporation. The decedent, a security guard for 36th Street, was killed by a forklift operated by a Universal employee. The Board had ruled that 36th Street was the general employer and Universal was the special employer. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence supporting the employment relationship with Universal, considering factors such as Universal's ownership of 36th Street, 36th Street's exclusive work for Universal, and Universal's provision of work equipment and assignments to 36th Street employees.

employer-employee relationshipspecial employergeneral employerworkers' compensationfatal accidentsecurity guardforklift accidentsubstantial evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pelaez v. Silverstone

A claimant sustained a head injury from a horse in December 2007 and sought workers' compensation benefits, naming Silverbrook Farm, Inc. as the employer. Silverstone Corporation, operating as Silverbrook, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, disputed the employer-employee relationship. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently determined that Silverbrook Farm, Inc. was the employer. The Board also denied Silverbrook's application for reconsideration or full Board review. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship with Silverbrook and no abuse of discretion in the Board's denial of further record development or reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppealSubstantial EvidenceBoard ReviewReconsiderationFarmHorse InjuryPayrollLease Agreement
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fisher v. KJ Transportation

Claimant, a tractor-trailer driver for KJ Transportation (KJT), sustained a work-related back injury. KJT, facing bankruptcy, entered into an agreement with Omne Staffing, Inc. to provide workers' compensation insurance, purportedly making KJT's employees those of Omne. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that an employer-employee relationship still existed between the claimant and KJT, prompting KJT's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that KJT maintained control over the claimant's work, provided equipment, and was listed as the payor, thus establishing the employer-employee relationship despite the agreement with Omne.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation InsuranceBankruptcy implicationsStaffing agreementAppellate affirmationControl test for employmentWork-related back injuryThird-party liabilityCorporate restructuringLegal precedent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ayala v. DRE Maintenance Corp.

The dissenting opinion concerns whether the Workers’ Compensation Board erred in finding a causal relationship between the decedent’s depression, resulting from a 1978 shooting accident, and his death in 1988. The dissent argues that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding. Dr. Hugo Morales, the decedent’s treating psychiatrist, clearly testified that while drug-alcohol abuse was the immediate cause of death, the decedent's severe and unabated 10-year depression was also a contributing factor. Dr. Morales’ medical opinion, meeting the "significant probability” and "rational basis” tests, indicated a clear relationship between the emotional status and death. Therefore, the dissenting justices would affirm the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationDepressionCausationDeath BenefitsMedical TestimonyPsychiatric EvaluationCausal RelationshipDrug-Alcohol AbuseDissenting OpinionTreating Physician
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 7,229 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