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

In re Bartenders Unlimited, Inc.

Bartenders Unlimited, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found its workers were employees for unemployment insurance contributions under Labor Law article 18. This contradicted an earlier Industrial Board of Appeals ruling that the workers were independent contractors for Labor Law articles 6 and 19. Bartenders argued collateral estoppel, but the Board rejected it, a stance affirmed by the court. The court reasoned that the term "employment" is not identically defined across all Labor Law statutes, allowing different administrative bodies to reach distinct conclusions on the mixed issue of law and fact, even with the same evidentiary facts. Therefore, collateral estoppel did not prevent the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board from reaching a different conclusion.

Unemployment InsuranceCollateral EstoppelIndependent ContractorsEmployeesLabor LawAdministrative LawAppealStatutory InterpretationMixed Question of Law and FactEvidentiary Facts
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 471 v. P. & J.G. Enterprises, Inc.

The Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 471, AFL-CIO, petitioned the court to confirm two arbitration awards against P. & J.G. Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a The Albany Thruway House. The dispute arose from the employer's discharge of two employees, Ann Russo and Mary O’Brien, who were members of the Union's collective bargaining unit. The first arbitration award, dated June 15, 1988, found the discharges were not for just cause and ordered reinstatement with back wages. Following the employer's failure to pay back wages despite reinstatement, a second arbitration award, dated September 14, 1989, quantified the back wages for the two employees. The employer contested the confirmation, citing lack of evidentiary support for the arbitrator's decision, alleged partiality of the arbitrator, and financial inability to pay the awards. The court, applying a limited scope of review for arbitration awards, rejected all of the employer's arguments. Ultimately, the court confirmed both arbitration awards and ordered the employer to pay the back wages, along with costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the Union, finding the employer's refusal to comply unjustified.

Arbitration awardLabor Management Relations ActCollective bargaining agreementBack wagesEmployee dischargeJust causeAttorney's feesJudicial reviewArbitrator partialityFinancial inability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fasanelli v. Heartland Brewery, Inc.

Plaintiff Peter Fasanelli initiated a collective action lawsuit against Empire State Brewing Corporation, Jonathan Bloostein, Heartland Brewery Inc., Heartland Brewery 2 Inc., and Heartland Brewery LLC, alleging widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Fasanelli, a former bartender, claimed that the defendants engaged in unlawful practices, including failing to pay minimum wages, denying overtime pay for hours worked over forty, manipulating time cards, and improperly retaining portions of employee tips. These alleged infractions impacted himself and other hourly employees, such as waiters, bartenders, runners, and bussers, across the defendants' six New York City restaurant locations. The court, presided over by Judge Deborah A. Batts, granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification under FLSA § 216(b) and for court-facilitated notice to potential class members. The decision affirmed that there was a sufficient factual nexus between Fasanelli's claims and those of the putative class, allowing for discovery of employee contact information from the past three years to facilitate the opt-in process, with specific instructions regarding notice content and attorney fee disclosures.

FLSANew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime PayMinimum Wage ViolationsTip MisappropriationCollective Action CertificationRule 23 Class ActionEmployee CompensationRestaurant Employment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Carroll v. Provenzano

An employer and their insurance carrier appealed a Workmen's Compensation Board decision. The claimant, a bartender, was injured slipping on a public sidewalk while returning home for lunch during an unscheduled Sunday shift. The employer had directed the claimant to go home for lunch but remained subject to recall. Appellants argued this was a conventional off-premises injury, but the court found special circumstances due to the employer's direction and continuous recall, which meant employment was not interrupted. The court affirmed the Board's finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentLunch BreakSpecial CircumstancesOff-Premises InjuryEmployer ControlContinuous RecallBartenderPublic Sidewalk
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bishop v. Bartley

This case concerns an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier challenging a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision. The claimant, a bartender, sustained injuries during a hold-up on the employer's premises while not on duty, having arrived to bring coffee to a co-worker as a personal favor. The Board had ruled that the injuries arose in the course of employment because the claimant was on the premises and acting for the employer's benefit. However, the court found no substantial evidence to support this, noting the claimant's own testimony that it was a purely personal gesture. Consequently, the decision of the Board was reversed, and the claim was remitted for further development of the record.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryCourse of EmploymentPersonal ErrandPremises LiabilityHold-upSubstantial EvidenceRemittalBartender
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2002

In re the Claim of Mooring

The claimant, a bartender, sustained a back injury in 1999, for which she received workers' compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier subsequently challenged her claim, asserting that she voluntarily withdrew from the labor market by refusing a light-duty work offer. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board found in favor of the employer, disallowing the claim. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that the claimant rejected a medically suitable light-duty position and failed to inform her treating physician of the offer, despite her testimony.

workers' compensation benefitsvoluntary withdrawallabor marketlight-duty workjob offer refusalback injuryemployer testimonymedical restrictionscredibility issuesubstantial evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Meltzer v. McAnns Bar & Grill

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision awarding death benefits to the claimant, the widow of a deceased bartender. The employer and its insurance carrier challenged the award, arguing that the decedent did not sustain an industrial accident, there was no causal connection between his work and death, and the claimant was not his legal widow due to an invalid marriage. The Board found the marriage valid, citing a strong presumption of validity from a ceremonial marriage, which the appellants failed to overcome. The Board's resolution of conflicting medical evidence regarding causal connection and the occurrence of an industrial accident was deemed to be a question of fact supported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation LawDeath Benefits ClaimAppellate Division ReviewMarriage Validity ChallengeIndustrial Accident DeterminationCausation in Workers' CompSubstantial Evidence RuleFactual Dispute ResolutionPresumption of Marital ValidityForeign Divorce Recognition
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05274 [187 AD3d 1280]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2020

Matter of Nikac v. Joal Rest. Corp.

Lydia Nikac, a bartender, was assaulted at work in 2014, leading to workers' compensation benefits for her injuries and PTSD. She reported a self-employment dog walking business, which led to a dispute regarding reduced earnings and later an accusation of violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a for failing to disclose ongoing work activities. Initially, a WCLJ found no violation, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, imposing penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded there was no indication Nikac knowingly made a false material statement to influence her claim, as her involvement in the business was tangential and known to the Board.

Workers' CompensationFraud AllegationFalse StatementMisrepresentationReduced EarningsTemporary Total DisabilityDog Walking BusinessSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemittal of Case
References
9
Case No. 159 AD3d 1319
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Matter of Fernandes v. Del Frisco's Rest. Grp

Michelle Fernandes, a bartender, applied for workers' compensation benefits after allegedly falling at work and sustaining injuries. The employer's carrier disputed the claim, asserting the incident didn't occur as described and that Fernandes made false representations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, disallowing the claim and finding false representations, though no penalty was assessed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's rejection of claimant's testimony and medical proof, particularly given video evidence that contradicted her account of the fall and the Board's role in resolving credibility issues.

Workers' CompensationFall at WorkCredibility DisputeVideo EvidenceFalse RepresentationCompensable InjuryMedical Proof RejectionAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 18 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