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

Craftmatic Comfort Manufacturing Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a Pennsylvania corporation selling adjustable beds, challenged a sales and use tax assessment for the period of March 1978 to February 1981. The corporation argued that sales of its beds, when prescribed by a physician, should be exempt as medical equipment under Tax Law § 1115 (a) (3). The respondent's determination disallowed this exemption, claiming the beds were not primarily used for medical purposes. The court, however, found the respondent's decision lacked substantial evidence, citing approvals from the Workers’ Compensation Board, Medicare, and the FDA, all of which classified the beds as medical devices or hospital beds. Consequently, the court annulled the portion of the determination denying the exemption for prescription sales and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Sales TaxUse TaxMedical Equipment ExemptionHospital BedsPhysician's PrescriptionSubstantial EvidenceTax LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewTax Assessment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of Sales Representatives, initiated an action against defendants Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. and Cellular Sales of New York, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. They claimed misclassification as independent contractors, which led to a deprivation of guaranteed compensation, including minimum wage and overtime. Defendants responded with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and alternatively, to compel mediation/arbitration based on clauses in the sales agreements. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming its power to adjudicate FLSA claims. However, it granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, determining that the mediation clauses were valid, unwaived, and that FLSA claims are arbitrable under federal law, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. All other pending motions, including plaintiffs' request for conditional collective action certification, were subsequently denied as moot.

FLSALabor LawMisclassificationIndependent ContractorCollective ActionArbitrationMediationSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)
References
28
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Car-Freshner Corp. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.

Plaintiffs Car-Freshner Corporation and Julius Samann LTD sued Defendants Big Lots Stores, Inc. and Midwestern Home Products, Inc. for trademark infringement and unfair competition over their sale of tree-shaped air fresheners. Plaintiffs own registered trademarks for their air fresheners. Applying the Polaroid factors, the Court found a likelihood of consumer confusion due to strong marks, striking product similarity, competitive proximity, and low buyer sophistication. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement. Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of punitive damages claims and a determination that the case was not exceptional under the Lanham Act, was denied, as factual disputes regarding intent and willfulness remained for trial.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionSummary JudgmentLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid FactorsLanham ActPunitive DamagesPost-Sale ConfusionTrade DressConsumer Protection
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Portrait Corp. of America, Inc.

Portrait Corporation of America, Inc. (PCA), and its affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During these proceedings, PCA sold substantially all its assets, including the "PICTUREME!" trademark, to CPI Corp. ("CPI") free and clear of interests under Bankruptcy Code section 363(f). Subsequently, Picture Me Press, LLC ("PMP") filed a trademark infringement action against CPI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging infringement of its "PICTURE ME" trademark. CPI then moved in the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the Sale Order and enjoin PMP's Ohio action, arguing that PMP's interest was extinguished by the free and clear sale. PMP contended its claims were not "interests" under 363(f) or that it lacked proper notice. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Robert D. Drain, determined that a trademark infringement claim could be an "interest" under 363(f) but decided to permissively abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). The court cited significant factual overlap between the motion to enforce the sale order and the pending Ohio action, involving issues of trademark ownership, effective notice to PMP, and post-sale use of the mark. The court also noted that the dispute was between non-debtors and had no financial impact on the debtors' estates, suggesting a risk of forum shopping, thus favoring abstention.

Bankruptcy LawSection 363(f)Trademark InfringementAbstentionSale Order EnforcementFederal JurisdictionDue ProcessChapter 11Creditors' RightsInter-court Conflict
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 1997

Claim of D'Accordo v. Spare Wheels & Car Shoppe

Claimant, an automobile salesperson, was injured in an accident while driving an employer's vehicle to the dealership to finalize a sale. The employer permitted salespersons to use demonstrator vehicles and conduct off-premises sales. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the accident occurred within the course of employment, a decision appealed by the employer and its carrier. The court affirmed, citing sufficient evidence that the claimant was engaged in work-related activity, including testimony that the employer encouraged taking vehicles to potential customers' homes and claimant's history of sales to relatives. The court concluded the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile SalesCourse of EmploymentAccidental InjuryDemonstrator VehicleOff-Premises SalesSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEmployer PolicyWork-Related Activity
References
3
Case No. Adv. No. 12-09801(SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Old Carco LLC

Chrysler Group LLC (New Chrysler) moved to enforce a prior Sale Order, arguing it precluded Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana from using Old Carco LLC's unemployment insurance experience rating to determine New Chrysler's tax rate. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge Stuart M. Bernstein, denied the motion without prejudice. The Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, because the states provided a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for New Chrysler to challenge the tax assessments in state courts. The decision highlighted the jurisdictional barrier of the Tax Injunction Act, which prevents federal courts from interfering with state tax collection, even in bankruptcy proceedings related to interpreting a sale order.

BankruptcyTax Injunction ActUnemployment Insurance TaxSuccessor LiabilitySale OrderFree and ClearJurisdictionState TaxationFederalismChapter 11
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ormsby Haulers, Inc. v. Tully

The case involves Ormsby Haulers, Inc., Kenneth Ormsby, and Raymond Ormsby challenging a sales and use tax assessment imposed by the State Tax Commission. The Sales Tax Bureau determined that the use of the Ormsby brothers’ personally owned tractors for corporate purposes constituted a taxable rental to the corporation. Petitioners argued that possession of the tractors was not transferred, as each vehicle remained under the individual owner's complete control. However, the commission's construction of 'rental' was deemed reasonable, and the court found a rational basis to conclude that a 'transfer of possession' took place due to the brothers' integral roles and the tractors' use for corporate purposes. Consequently, the determination to uphold the sales tax assessment was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Sales Tax AssessmentUse TaxCorporate StructureTractor RentalConstructive PossessionTax Law InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingJudicial Review of Agency DeterminationBusiness Entity TaxationTransfer of Possession
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hampton v. Kelly

The employer and its insurance carrier appealed a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which awarded death benefits to the decedent’s beneficiaries. The decedent, a part-time liquor store employee, was fatally injured in December 1967 while commuting to work in his personal vehicle. The Board had affirmed a Referee’s award, reasoning that the decedent’s use of his car for occasional deliveries benefited the employer, thus making his commute work-related. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no substantial evidence to support that the decedent’s car use was required by the employer or for business purposes. The court concluded that the decedent used his car for personal convenience, and the store policy was against deliveries, therefore, his travel to work did not fall within the course of employment.

Death Benefits ClaimEmployment ScopeCommute RulePersonal Vehicle UseEmployer Benefit TestAccident InjuryAppellate Court DecisionReversal of AwardSubstantial Evidence ReviewWork-Related Injury
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,585 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