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
Nov 03, 2014

Lewis v. Livingston County Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation

Plaintiff Cindy L. Lewis brought an action against Livingston County Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation (Livingston County CNR) for alleged disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Lewis, a former certified nursing assistant, claimed she was terminated for refusing mandated overtime due to a permanent partial disability. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the Livingston County CNR lacked the capacity to be sued and that Lewis failed to serve a notice of claim for her NYSHRL claims. The court granted Lewis's cross-motion to amend the complaint to substitute Livingston County as the defendant. The court dismissed Lewis's NYSHRL claims due to the failure to file a notice of claim but denied the motion to dismiss the ADA discrimination and retaliation claims, concluding that the essential function of overtime work and the reasonableness of the accommodation required factual inquiry.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment RetaliationAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York State Human Rights LawReasonable AccommodationMandated OvertimeMotion to DismissMotion to Amend ComplaintIdentity of Interest ExceptionNotice of Claim
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1988

In re Nurse Care Registry, Inc.

Nurse Care Registry, Inc., an agency providing health care personnel, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that classified its workers as employees rather than independent contractors, making Nurse Care liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence of Nurse Care's control over key aspects of the services provided by the workers. This control included client contact, worker wages, and billing/collection, which were deemed indicative of an employer-employee relationship. The court relied on precedent establishing that such control warrants an employment finding, despite workers having full-time positions elsewhere and the agency not directly supervising daily work.

unemployment insuranceemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractoradministrative lawappellate reviewlabor lawagency staffingcontrol testsubstantial evidencehealth care industry
References
4
Case No. ADJ8990294
Regular
Oct 26, 2015

VELMA CRUZ vs. TRINITY NURSING HOME MANAGEMENT/SERRANO SOUTH CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for injuries allegedly sustained as a certified nursing assistant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision that found no industrial injury, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof regarding causation. While one commissioner dissented, advocating for further record development due to credible testimony of injury mechanisms and potentially insufficient medical evidence, the majority upheld the denial. The majority also noted that, separate from the causation issue, a post-termination provision might also bar the claim.

WCABVelma CruzTrinity Nursing HomeSerrano South ConvalescentSeabright InsuranceADJ8990294Petition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeFindings and OrderCertified Nursing Assistant
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huntington Hospital v. Huntington Hospital Nurses' Ass'n

Huntington Hospital initiated an action under the Federal Arbitration Act to partially vacate an arbitration award, while the Huntington Hospital Nurses’ Association cross-petitioned to confirm it. The dispute originated from the Hospital unilaterally granting two nurses, Betty Evans and Lynn Meyer, longevity pay credits exceeding the ten-year cap stipulated in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The arbitrator found the Hospital violated the CBA's sections on pay and exclusive bargaining rights. The arbitrator mandated the Hospital roll back excess credits and recover overpayments. The District Court denied the Hospital's petition, dismissing arguments regarding public policy, manifest disregard for law, and lack of award finality, ultimately confirming the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal Arbitration ActWage DisputesLongevity PayUnion RightsPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawContract Interpretation
References
22
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06800
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2021

Harris v. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Facility LLC

Plaintiff Mariantha Harris appealed an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, denying her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense based on the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the order, granting Harris's cross motion. Harris successfully established prima facie that she was not an employee of Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility LLC at the time of her accident, but rather was solely employed by nonparty Clear Choice, P.C. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that Harris was its special employee, with its reliance solely on the plaintiff performing duties at its nursing home being insufficient. Additionally, the court found the doctrine of judicial estoppel inapplicable because plaintiff had not secured a judgment in her favor in the prior proceeding, and the defendant's prematurity argument was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

Summary JudgmentExclusive RemedyEmployment StatusSpecial EmployeeSlip and FallJudicial EstoppelAppellate ProcedureCross MotionAffirmative DefenseClear Choice P.C.
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Futterman v. New York State Nurses Ass'n

The plaintiff, an officer of the New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) Council of Nursing Practitioners at Erie County Medical Center, was found guilty by NYSNA of conduct detrimental to the Association for attempting to decertify NYSNA and replace it with a rival union between May 31, 1983, and July 5, 1983. The plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the expulsion, arguing that the right to support a rival union is protected by Civil Service Law § 208 (subd 1, par [a]) and cannot be abridged. The court notes that prior cases, like Ballas v McKiernan, did not address discipline against union officers for such activities. Citing PERB's interpretation and Federal precedents, the court found that expelling an officer for aiding a competing organization is not an improper union practice. The court concluded that a labor union should be permitted to expel an officer working to certify a rival union, especially when continued employment is not conditioned on union membership and fair representation is guaranteed. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.

Union DisciplineDeclaratory JudgmentPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Civil Service LawDual UnionismFreedom of AssociationUnion Officer ExpulsionCollective BargainingEmployee OrganizationsUnfair Labor Practice
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Muller v. Albany Medical College

Claimant, a certified nurse anesthetist, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from March 26, 2004, which denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits. He alleged suffering from depression and drug addiction due to being compelled to assist in abortion procedures between 1976 and 1994. The Board affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s denial, finding that the circumstances did not constitute a work-related accident. Despite his claims, evidence showed he often chose to assist in abortions and did not express refusal to supervisors, contrary to hospital policy allowing such refusal. Furthermore, his contention of morphine abuse related to these procedures was unsupported. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s determination, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence.

Mental injuryPsychic traumaDrug addictionDepressionNurse anesthetistAbortion proceduresWorkers' Compensation LawCompensable injuryWork-related accidentHospital policy
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2007

Claim of Torrance v. Loretto Rest Nursing Home

Claimant, a food service worker for Loretto Rest Nursing Home, suffered a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits. While receiving partial disability benefits, she took a light duty job with another employer. Loretto subsequently terminated her employment, citing a collective bargaining agreement provision against "moonlighting" while on leave. Claimant filed a discrimination claim under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found discrimination, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed. On appeal, the Board's decision was affirmed, as Loretto's termination was deemed a non-discriminatory application of a neutral company policy.

Discrimination ClaimWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPartial DisabilityLight Duty EmploymentTermination of EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementNeutral PolicyCausal NexusAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 120
References
10
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03114 [171 AD3d 1410]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Matter of Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor)

Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc. (HNR), a staffing agency, appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed HNR for additional unemployment insurance contributions for health care workers for the years 2008-2010, reversing an Administrative Law Judge's decision. HNR's main contention on appeal was that the Board was bound by a prior unappealed Administrative Law Judge decision from 1999, which had found HNR's health care workers to be independent contractors for an earlier audit period. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board is not bound by prior unappealed Administrative Law Judge decisions, especially when covering different audit periods and presenting additional factors of control.

Unemployment InsuranceStaffing AgencyHealth Care WorkersIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee StatusUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAdministrative Law Judge DecisionStare DecisisAudit PeriodAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,237 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