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, 1999

Claim of Jhoda v. Mauser Service, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on December 3, 1999. The Board ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and Mauser Service, Inc., doing business as Nu Nu Car Service. The claimant, a livery car driver, was shot in March 1993 while on a call directed by the corporation’s dispatcher and asserted a workers’ compensation claim. The corporation contested the claim, arguing it had no relationship with the claimant and that its drivers were independent contractors. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s findings, concluding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the employer-employee relationship and the accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractor disputeLivery car driver injuryRadio-dispatched service liabilitySubstantial evidence reviewCredibility findingControl test for employmentAccident arising out of employmentAppellate affirmanceWorkers' compensation appeal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 1995

Claim of Shoemaker v. Manpower, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the employment status of a claimant who was injured while working at Westwood Pharmaceuticals. The claimant was generally employed by Manpower, Inc., a temporary employee supplier. Westwood contended that it was the claimant's special employer, limiting her remedy to workers' compensation. The Board initially found that Westwood's control was insufficient to establish a special employment relationship, ruling Manpower as the sole employer. Both Westwood and Manpower appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's findings, concluding that the evidence demonstrated Westwood exercised exclusive control and supervision over the claimant's activities, thereby establishing a special employment relationship. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this Court's decision.

Special EmploymentTemporary EmployeeWorkers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityControl TestDual EmploymentAppellate ReviewRemittalSubstantial EvidencePersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Keles v. Santos

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied a claimant's request for workers' compensation benefits. The claimant, primarily employed by Plymouth Beef Company, sought benefits for an injury allegedly sustained while performing inspection work for Augusto B. Santos, who owned a cleaning business at the same facility. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found no employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and Santos, leading to the disallowance of the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting the lack of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors considered included Santos's lack of control over the claimant's work, the cessation of payment to the claimant months before the accident, and the gratuitous nature of the claimant's continued services, which did not establish an employment bond.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRight to ControlMethod of PaymentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionGratuitous ServicesScope of Employment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fina v. New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority

The case involves a claimant who injured his leg while serving as a volunteer ski patroller. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and the New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority, despite the claimant's initial volunteer status being established without controversy. The Board's decision reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's determination that the claimant, a volunteer, was entitled to benefits based on his regular vocation as a self-employed engineer. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination of an employer-employee relationship, noting that the Board relied solely on the claimant's testimony from a time when his volunteer status was undisputed. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for a review of the claimant's average weekly wage based on his volunteer status.

Employer-Employee RelationshipVolunteer StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAverage Weekly WageSubstantial EvidenceScope of Board ReviewSki PatrolGore Mountain Ski CenterNew York State Olympic Regional Development AuthorityRemand
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Claim of Rainone v. 36th Street Terminal Corp.

This case is an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed August 4, 1993, which found an employer-employee relationship between the decedent and Universal Maritime Service Corporation, in addition to 36th Street Terminal Corporation. The decedent, a security guard for 36th Street, was killed by a forklift operated by a Universal employee. The Board had ruled that 36th Street was the general employer and Universal was the special employer. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence supporting the employment relationship with Universal, considering factors such as Universal's ownership of 36th Street, 36th Street's exclusive work for Universal, and Universal's provision of work equipment and assignments to 36th Street employees.

employer-employee relationshipspecial employergeneral employerworkers' compensationfatal accidentsecurity guardforklift accidentsubstantial evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pelaez v. Silverstone

A claimant sustained a head injury from a horse in December 2007 and sought workers' compensation benefits, naming Silverbrook Farm, Inc. as the employer. Silverstone Corporation, operating as Silverbrook, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, disputed the employer-employee relationship. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently determined that Silverbrook Farm, Inc. was the employer. The Board also denied Silverbrook's application for reconsideration or full Board review. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship with Silverbrook and no abuse of discretion in the Board's denial of further record development or reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppealSubstantial EvidenceBoard ReviewReconsiderationFarmHorse InjuryPayrollLease Agreement
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1990

Claim of Weingarten v. XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc.

This case addresses whether a claimant, a shareholder and participating limousine driver for XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc., qualifies as an employee eligible for workers' compensation benefits. The corporation, which provides dispatch services, requires drivers to purchase shares and own their limousines, covering personal expenses. While drivers have flexible hours, they are obligated to accept "voucher fares" assigned by the corporation, with penalties for refusal, and the corporation manages these payments. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found no employer-employee relationship, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding an employer-employee relationship existed due to the corporation's significant control over the voucher fare system and the claimant's dependence on the corporation for business. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding sufficient evidence of control to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship.

employer-employee relationshipworkers' compensationlimousine driverindependent contractorcontrol testshareholderdispatch servicesvoucher faresadministrative appealNew York
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2006

Claim of Sang Hwan Park v. Lee

Claimant, a delivery truck owner-operator, filed a workers' compensation claim against Semok Lee, for whom he delivered produce, after sustaining an L4-L5 disc herniation. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined no employer-employee relationship existed, closing proof without Semok Lee's testimony. Claimant appealed, arguing due process violations and a lack of substantial evidence to support the WCLJ's findings. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding no due process breach as claimant waived the issue by not timely objecting. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that no employer-employee relationship existed, citing claimant's ownership of his truck, payment of expenses, and self-employment status on tax returns.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceIndependent ContractorDelivery TruckBack InjuryTax ReturnsWaiverAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fisher v. KJ Transportation

Claimant, a tractor-trailer driver for KJ Transportation (KJT), sustained a work-related back injury. KJT, facing bankruptcy, entered into an agreement with Omne Staffing, Inc. to provide workers' compensation insurance, purportedly making KJT's employees those of Omne. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that an employer-employee relationship still existed between the claimant and KJT, prompting KJT's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that KJT maintained control over the claimant's work, provided equipment, and was listed as the payor, thus establishing the employer-employee relationship despite the agreement with Omne.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation InsuranceBankruptcy implicationsStaffing agreementAppellate affirmationControl test for employmentWork-related back injuryThird-party liabilityCorporate restructuringLegal precedent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Adler v. Guild Electronics

The claimant appeals a Workers' Compensation Board decision from July 1, 1982, which found no causal relationship between the decedent's employment and his death from immunoblastic lymphoma. The claimant's expert testified to a direct link with toxic substance exposure at work, while the employer's expert and an impartial specialist found no such connection due to limited medical research. The Board resolved this factual dispute against the claimant, a decision supported by substantial evidence. The court, noting that the Board is responsible for weighing conflicting medical evidence, affirmed the Board's finding.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipImmunoblastic LymphomaToxic ExposureMedical Expert OpinionFactual DisputeSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDiseaseEmployment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 10,611 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