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

Henneberry v. ING Capital Advisors

Virginia Henneberry was terminated from her employment with ING Furman Selz Asset Management, LLC and ING Capital Advisors, LLC. She initiated arbitration, challenging the burden of proof and arguing arbitrator misconduct after the arbitrator reversed his initial ruling on the burden of proof. Both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division upheld the arbitration award. This court affirmed those decisions, finding that the arbitrator's procedural error in shifting the burden of proof did not deprive Henneberry of a fundamentally fair arbitration or exceed his authority, especially since he concluded the employer would have prevailed regardless of who bore the burden.

ArbitrationEmployment AgreementTerminationBurden of ProofArbitrator MisconductDue ProcessFundamental FairnessCPLR 7511Judicial ReviewAppellate Practice
References
4
Case No. ADJ10257811
Regular
Dec 18, 2020

JORGE ANDRADE vs. CECILIO ARREDONDO TERREZAS, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the judge's decision finding the applicant was not an employee at the time of injury, concluding he failed to meet his burden of proof. The applicant did not provide evidence establishing an employment relationship with the labor contractor or its associated individuals, and evidence indicated he paid for his own transportation. A dissenting opinion argued the board and judge incorrectly shifted the burden of proof, stating the applicant is presumed an employee and the employer must prove otherwise. The dissent would have rescinded the decision for failure to meet the employer's burden.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderEmployee StatusLabor ContractorBurden of ProofEmployment RelationshipPresumption of EmployeeLabor CodeRebuttal of Presumption
References
5
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

Claim of Riccardi v. ARA Leisure Services

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from March 5, 1990, which denied his claim for double workers’ compensation benefits, ruling he was not illegally employed. The claimant argued he was entitled to double benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14-a due to illegal employment. However, a certificate of employment was produced, showing his employment was authorized. The burden was then on the claimant to prove violations of Labor Law §§ 132 and 135. The claimant failed to present evidence that he did not give working papers to the employer or that the employer did not request or keep them on file. Consequently, the claimant did not meet his burden of proof, and the Workers’ Compensation Board's finding that no illegal employment existed was upheld. The court affirmed the decision, finding no reason to remit the matter for further development of the record.

Illegal EmploymentDouble Workers' Compensation BenefitsCertificate of EmploymentBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionLabor Law ComplianceAffirmed Decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ7781676
Regular
Nov 01, 2017

TERESA HERNANDEZ vs. T K & J, INC., dba LAS PALMAS RESTAURANT, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claim by Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center for medical treatment provided to applicant Teresa Hernandez. The applicant sustained a complex injury in 2010, and the employer provided some treatment through Dr. Lane, an MPN physician, including surgeries. The lien claimant contended that proper MPN notice was not provided and that the applicant was therefore entitled to seek treatment outside the MPN. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that the lien claimant failed to demonstrate that any lack of notice resulted in a denial of reasonable medical treatment, a burden of proof established by statute. Therefore, the employer was not liable for the applicant's self-procured treatment with non-MPN providers.

MPNLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical Provider NetworkReasonably Necessary Medical TreatmentSelf-ProcureBurden of ProofLabor CodeSB 863
References
4
Case No. ADJ6927641
Regular
Oct 24, 2016

Victor Arredondo vs. Scott Linskey dba Malibu Coast Nursery and Landscapes, Willy Arredondo, Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original findings. The Board found the initial decision insufficient because it failed to address whether the applicant was employed by Willy Arredondo or as a dual employee of both Willy Arredondo and Scott Linskey. Furthermore, the Board determined that the applicant had met his initial burden of proving services rendered, shifting the burden to the employer to rebut the presumption of employment. The case is returned for further proceedings to make findings on employment status, independent contractor status, and any exclusions to coverage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactBurden of ProofEmploymentDual EmployersPresumption of EmploymentIndependent ContractorExcluded EmployeeBorello
References
6
Case No. ADJ8641348
Regular
Jan 10, 2014

Jason Guimont vs. PCA MANAGEMENT, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that Jason Guimont sustained an industrial injury to his back and other body parts from lifting heavy items. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found Guimont's testimony credible regarding the injury and his attempts to report it. The employer's contentions, including claims of inconsistent testimony and lack of proof, were rejected. The WCJ's decision was based on the applicant meeting his burden of proof and the employer's failure to provide a claim form within the statutory timeframe.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ Reportcredibility findingclaimant's testimonyemployer's testimonycompany doctormedical reportsprior injuries
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Russo v. M & M Transportation

The claimant, employed by M & M Transportation, sustained back and knee injuries in 1976. The employer's insurance carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, alleging various preexisting conditions under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). However, the carrier failed to produce medical proof to support its claim of preexisting conditions, even after being directed to do so by the Hearing Officer. Consequently, the Hearing Officer discharged the Special Fund, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the carrier's failure to provide clarifying medical proof and finding the Board's denial of reconsideration was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court emphasized that the existence of a previous disability must be established before addressing the employer's knowledge of such a condition.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting Medical ConditionMedical EvidenceCarrier ObligationsBoard DiscretionDenial of ReconsiderationAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Seatrain Lines, Inc.

Seatrain Lines, Inc., operating as a debtor-in-possession under Chapter 11, objected to a proof of claim filed by the BSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund. The Pension Fund sought $323,163.00 in withdrawal liability, asserting Seatrain was an 'employer' under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 due to its prior engagement of stevedores for longshoremen services. Seatrain argued it was not an employer because the longshoremen were hired, paid, and controlled by independent stevedores, not Seatrain directly. The court examined common law indicia of employment and congressional intent behind the Multiemployer Act. It concluded that Seatrain was neither a common law employer nor an employer under the Multiemployer Act, and thus had no withdrawal liability. The Pension Fund's claim was consequently ordered expunged.

BankruptcyMultiemployer Pension PlanWithdrawal LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorLongshoremenERISAChapter 11Proof of ClaimClaim Objection
References
3
Case No. ADJ9123291
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

SALVADOR PEREZ vs. THREE Js TRUCKING, INC., UNINSURED EMPLOYER BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a finding that lien claimant Med-Legal LLC failed to prove applicant's employment. The WCAB found that applicant's statement to a physician, documented in a sworn report, constituted hearsay admissible in workers' compensation proceedings. This report, combined with the employer's lack of contrary evidence, shifted the burden to the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) to disprove employment. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the prior order and returned the case for further proceedings on the employment issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundEmployee StatusPrima Facie CaseHearsay EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 11,574 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