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 Yovanny L.

This case addresses the accuracy of court interpreter translations in a juvenile delinquency proceeding. The Assistant Corporation Counsel moved to strike the complainant's testimony, alleging significant errors by the court-appointed Mandarin interpreter. After conducting a hearing and considering testimony from both the Assistant Corporation Counsel and the interpreter, the court acknowledged that some minor errors in translation and interpreter conduct occurred. However, the court ultimately found these errors to be isolated instances and not sufficiently serious or pervasive to cause major prejudice to any party. Consequently, the drastic remedy of striking the testimony and starting anew was denied, and the trial was ordered to resume with a different Mandarin interpreter.

Juvenile DelinquencyCourt InterpretersTranslation AccuracyDue Process RightsEvidentiary MotionTestimony AdmissibilityMandarin LanguageFamily Court ProcedureJudicial ReviewProcedural Errors
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00229
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Patsis (Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal by Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had ruled that Louiza Patsis, a linguist working for LIS, was an employee and that LIS was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. LIS contended that Patsis was an independent contractor and challenged the Board's adherence to Department of Labor guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment relationship. The court noted the control LIS exercised over its linguists through a written agreement and job assignments, and found no inconsistency with the Department of Labor guidelines.

unemployment insuranceemployment relationshipindependent contractorappellate divisionlabor lawunemployment benefitsstatutory interpretationsubstantial evidenceadministrative reviewlegal interpreting
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00228 [201 AD3d 1164]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Debora (Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns an appeal by Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS) from decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board determined that Fausto Debora, a linguist, was an employee of LIS and that LIS was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the existence of an employment relationship. The court noted that LIS exercised sufficient control over its linguists by screening qualifications, negotiating pay, and assigning jobs, despite some flexibility offered to the linguists. The decision also dismissed LIS's argument regarding Department of Labor guidelines, stating no inconsistency was found with established common-law tests for employment.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLinguist ServicesControl TestDepartment of Labor GuidelinesEmployer LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. State

The case concerns a challenge by home care service agencies and a trade association (petitioners) to New York's Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law § 3614-c). This law conditions Medicaid reimbursement for home health care services in the metropolitan New York area on agencies paying home care aides a minimum wage, determined by reference to New York City's Living Wage Law. Petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional due to improper delegation of legislative authority, violation of the "incorporation by reference" clause, and violation of home rule provisions. They also challenged the Department of Health's (DOH) interpretation of "total compensation." The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the respondents (DOH), and the appellate court affirmed, finding no improper delegation, no violation of the incorporation by reference clause, home rule provisions inapplicable as Medicaid is a state concern, and DOH's interpretation of "total compensation" to be rational.

Wage Parity LawHome Health Care ServicesMedicaid ReimbursementConstitutional LawLegislative AuthorityNew York City Living Wage LawHome RuleDue ProcessDepartment of HealthStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amedore v. Peterson

Judge Graffeo dissents from a decision concerning the interpretation of New York Election Law § 11-302, which governs the use of special ballots by poll workers. The dissent argues that the statute's provisions, stating that special ballots should be provided "not earlier than two weeks before the election" and cast "not later than the close of the polls on election day," imply a requirement that these ballots also be cast no earlier than two weeks prior to the election. The Appellate Division, however, concluded there was no violation when ballots were both distributed and cast more than two weeks before the election, allowing them to be canvassed. Graffeo contends that this interpretation warrants further appellate review due to conflicting lower court conclusions and the importance of strict compliance with election procedures, referencing previous rulings on absentee balloting.

Statutory InterpretationElection LawSpecial BallotsPoll WorkersVoting ProceduresBallot CanvassingAppellate ReviewStrict ComplianceDissenting OpinionNew York Election Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kallir v. Friendly Ice Cream

The claimant sought disability benefits for a period exceeding her standard maternity leave because her newborn suffered from an allergic condition requiring breast milk, preventing her return to work. The Workers’ Compensation Board granted additional benefits, interpreting the disability as a complication of pregnancy, despite the mother being physically able to work. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of the Workers' Compensation Law to meet the human needs of workers and acknowledging the inextricable connection between the child's condition and the pregnancy under these unique circumstances.

Pregnancy DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsComplication of PregnancyBreastfeeding DisabilityStatutory InterpretationLiberal ConstructionBoard Decision AffirmedChild's Health ImpactMaternity Leave ExtensionDisability Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Williams v. Upjohn Healthcare Services

The Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, filed on February 8, 1983, found that the claimant satisfied the requirement of timely furnishing proof of disability to her employer under subdivision 1 of section 217 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The claimant was disabled on October 2, 1980, and attempted to mail a disability claim form in November 1980, which was not received. A second form was mailed more than 26 weeks after the disability date. The Board interpreted "furnish" liberally and determined that the claimant had timely provided proof in November 1980 by taking reasonable steps. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding the Board's liberal construction of "furnish" rational and its factual finding supported by substantial evidence.

Disability BenefitsTimely NoticeProof of DisabilityStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLiberal ConstructionEmployer NotificationInsurance Carrier Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Carrera

Dr. Gumersindo P. Carrera, a self-employed physician with a part-time instructorship, filed a Chapter XIII bankruptcy petition, listing significant income from private practice and over $230,000 in unsecured debts. A creditor moved to dismiss the case, arguing Dr. Carrera was not a "wage earner" as defined under the Bankruptcy Act, as his principal income did not come from wages, salary, or commissions. The Court, presided over by Judge John J. Galgay, found that Dr. Carrera's income structure, heavily reliant on his medical practice, did not meet the statutory definition of a wage earner. Despite arguments for a liberal interpretation, the Court ruled it could not disregard the clear limitations of Chapter XIII. Furthermore, Dr. Carrera's debts exceeded the $100,000 limit for relief under the newly liberalized Chapter 13. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition.

BankruptcyChapter XIIIWage Earner DefinitionSelf-Employed PhysicianIncome QualificationCreditor MotionStatutory InterpretationBankruptcy ActDebtor EligibilityDismissal
References
5
Case No. ADJ779198 (SJO 0267719)
Regular
Nov 19, 2010

EVELIN GARCIA vs. SERVICE PERFORMANCE CORPORATION, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The WCAB granted reconsideration and reversed a prior award for interpreting services, finding the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proof. The claimant did not demonstrate the interpreting services were reasonable, necessary, or provided by qualified interpreters. Crucially, the medical provider's office advertised Spanish-speaking staff, and the doctor himself spoke Spanish, negating the necessity for external interpretation services. Therefore, the lien for interpreter fees was disallowed.

WCABReconsiderationLien ClaimantInterpreting ServicesQualified InterpreterReasonablenessNecessityBurden of ProofLabor Code Section 4600Labor Code Section 5811
References
5
Case No. ADJ8361822
Regular
Aug 03, 2015

LORENA CHAVEZ vs. ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, ESIS

This case concerns ABC Interpreting, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of a WCJ's decision awarding them $180.00 for interpreter services. ABC Interpreting sought $250.00, claiming entitlement to the pre-established market rate, plus interest and penalties for late payment. The Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's award because ABC Interpreting failed to provide adequate documentation of market rate, their qualifications as an interpreter, and because Labor Code section 5811 does not authorize penalties and interest. The Board found the $180.00 award consistent with the reasonable and customary rate for interpreter services in the applicable geographic area.

Petition for ReconsiderationInterpreter FeesLabor Code Section 5811Market RateSuperior Court Fee ScheduleQualified InterpreterDeposition ServicesUntimely PaymentInterest and PenaltyAmended Order
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,079 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