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
Dec 03, 2010

Claim of Gardner v. Triple R Transport, Inc.

The claimant, a truck driver, was injured in 1999 while working for the employer. The employer's workers' compensation carrier contested the existence of an employer-employee relationship and, subsequently, the calculation of the claimant's average weekly wage. The Workers' Compensation Board determined there was an employer-employee relationship and set the average weekly wage based on the claimant's gross income. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the wage should be based on net income after employment-related tax deductions. The court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board failed to review the claimant's tax deductions or explain its deviation from prior precedent regarding necessary expenses. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageGross IncomeNet IncomeTax DeductionsEmployer-Employee RelationshipRemittalFactual DeterminationPrecedentTruck Driver
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Hills v. New York City Board of Education

The claimant suffered a work-related wrist injury and was awarded workers' compensation benefits, including a schedule loss of use payment. The self-insured employer mailed a check for $4,580.20, but the claimant asserted non-receipt and denied endorsing the cancelled check. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge ordered the employer to re-issue payment and investigate. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that timely mailing constituted payment and absolved the employer of further obligation. The Appellate Division found the Board's reversal arbitrary and capricious, as it failed to provide a rationale for deviating from its own conflicting precedents regarding employer responsibility in cases of unreceived or improperly endorsed payments. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the determination that the employer was not required to issue another check, and remitted the matter for additional proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UsePayment DisputeCheck Non-receiptEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawArbitrary and CapriciousRemittal
References
11
Case No. ADJ8365866
Regular
May 02, 2014

CESAR MARTIN vs. STUDIO CHAMELEON LLC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant's injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The Board found the applicant's stop at a friend's house to retrieve a phone charger benefited the employer by enabling continued communication. Additionally, the auto accident occurred after the applicant left his friend's house and was en route back to the employer's premises on a normal route, thus concluding any deviation. The Board also clarified the legal distinction between "scope of employment" (a tort concept) and "course of employment" (a workers' compensation term of art).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationdeniedcourse of employmentscope of employmentmotor vehicle accidentmaterial deviationemployer's instructionsapplicant's benefitpersonal comfort
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Devlin v. Edward Petry & Co.

Joseph Devlin, an outside worker selling radio time and acting as a liaison, died from traumatic injuries after leaving a business meeting with a client. His body was discovered on New York Central tracks, and an autopsy revealed 0.15% alcohol in his brain. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found that Devlin was an outside worker, applying presumptions under Section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and concluded that his death was causally related to accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing that Devlin's employment ended at Grand Central Station. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence to classify Devlin as an 'outside' worker, and ruled that his employment continued until he reached home, finding no required deviation from employment.

Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawOutside Worker StatusCourse of EmploymentCausal RelationshipWork-Related DeathAlcohol Content in AutopsyAppellate Review of Board DecisionEmployer ResponsibilityInsurance Carrier Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1972

Claim of McGee v. Allstate Insurance

The claimant's husband, a District Sales Manager for Allstate Insurance Company, died in a car accident on September 30, 1970, after attending a sales meeting and continuing business discussions at bars. Although his home was in Utica, the accident occurred en route from Rome. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found the decedent was an outside worker and in the course of his employment at the time of death, awarding death benefits to the claimant. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the board's decision, ruling that social activities connected with and incidental to an employer’s business are considered part of employment and that the decedent had not deviated from his employment.

Death BenefitsCourse of EmploymentOutside WorkerSales MeetingBusiness DiscussionCar AccidentDeviation from EmploymentAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
3
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 1980

Claim of Porta v. Otis Glazebrook Associates, Inc.

The Uninsured Employers’ Fund appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from February 11, 1980. The fund contended that a compensation insurance policy issued by Royal Globe Insurance Co. to a corporate employer was improperly canceled and should have remained in effect after the claimant's injury. The court found that the carrier mailed the cancellation notice in the required form to the employer's last known business address and to the Workers’ Compensation Board chairman. The court stated that the insurance agency's knowledge of the employer's president living elsewhere did not require a deviation from the legal prerequisites for valid cancellation under Workers’ Compensation Law, § 54, subd 5. The decision affirmed the board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported it and no abuse of discretion was shown in rejecting the fund's argument.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CancellationUninsured Employers' FundPolicy CancellationStatutory ComplianceAppealSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewRoyal Globe Insurance
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lippman v. Public Employment Relations Board

This proceeding involved the Unified Court System (UCS) challenging a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found that UCS violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally issuing an administrative order in December 1997 that amended regulations (22 NYCRR part 108) related to court reporters' fees for selling transcripts to litigants. The court reviewed PERB's findings that the new page-rate guidelines and a mandatory "Minute Agreement Form" constituted an improper practice by altering terms of employment. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the page-rate guidelines actually limited reporters' compensation. Furthermore, while the Agreement Form did alter some aspects of employment, its impact was minimal and outweighed by UCS's broader mission to ensure understandable, uniform, timely, and affordable access to justice. Therefore, the court annulled PERB's determination and granted the petition.

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lashlee v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling

The Special Disability Fund appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's average weekly wage calculation. The claimant, injured while employed by Pepsi-Cola, also had concurrent employment with Mid-Hudson Limousine Service, Inc. and Robert H. Auchmoody Funeral Homes, Inc. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) included Auchmoody as a concurrent employer, increasing the claimant's average weekly wage. The Fund argued that Auchmoody should not be considered a "covered" employer because there was no proof of workers' compensation insurance. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that "covered" employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) refers to an employer subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law, irrespective of whether they actually carried an insurance policy, and that the law must be liberally construed in favor of employees.

Workers’ CompensationConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageCovered EmploymentIndependent ContractorSpecial Disability FundInsurance PolicyLiberal ConstructionAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a professional employer organization (PEO) may be a proper claimant under a labor and materials surety bond. Plaintiff Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a PEO, provided employee leasing services to Team Star Contractors, Inc. for a construction project, covering payroll, taxes, and insurance. When Team Star failed to pay, Tri-State filed a claim with the surety, Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., which was dismissed by the District Court. The New York Court of Appeals determined that a PEO's primary role as an administrative services provider and payroll financier creates a presumption that it does not provide labor for the purpose of a payment bond claim. The Court found that Tri-State failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating sufficient direction and control over the workers. Consequently, the Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. is not a proper claimant under the surety bond in the circumstances presented.

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 10,290 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