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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cortijo v. Ilfin Corp.

A decedent, employed as a building superintendent, was found dead from a 12-gauge shotgun wound on his employer's premises during working hours. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the unexplained death, occurring on the employer's property and during working hours, raised a presumption of compensability under section 21 of the Workers' Compensation Law. This presumption led to the conclusion that the death arose out of and in the course of employment, justifying an award of death benefits to the claimant. The Board found that police testimony regarding the decedent's prior illegal activities was insufficient to rebut this statutory presumption. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding them supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPresumption of CompensabilityUnexplained DeathEmployment InjuryOn-Premises DeathStatutory PresumptionRebuttal of PresumptionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2005

Claim of Marcus v. City of Troy

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from June 8, 2005, which determined that the death of her husband, a truck driver/sewer maintenance worker for the City of Troy, Department of Public Utilities, was not causally related to his employment. The decedent died suddenly while driving a company truck with a coworker. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits, citing the presumption in Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 for deaths occurring during employment. However, the Board disagreed, finding the presumption rebutted by the employer’s evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer presented substantial medical evidence, based on the decedent's history of health issues, to support the determination that the death was unrelated to his employment, thereby successfully rebutting the presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Law § 21Presumption of compensabilityCausationMedical EvidenceRebuttal evidenceUnexplained deathCardiac eventsEmployment-related deathBurden of proofAppellate review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Crump v. Saint Patrick's Church

The decedent, claimant's husband, collapsed at work and died of coronary artery disease. Due to the unwitnessed incident at work, a presumption of causal relation to employment arose under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1). Initially, the self-insured employer failed to rebut this presumption, leading to an award of benefits. However, upon review, the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded the determination and allowed for consideration of a report from the employer’s medical expert. This expert provided uncontroverted testimony that there was no causal relation between the decedent’s work activities and his death. The Board affirmed this decision, which was further supported by evidence including the decedent's pre-work complaints of dizziness and pain, minimal strenuous activity at work, and an autopsy revealing no new heart damage. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the employer had provided substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of compensability.

Causal RelationPresumption of CompensabilityCoronary Artery DiseaseMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceRebuttalAppellate ReviewEmployment DeathUnderlying Medical ConditionWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Hill-Chapman v. Earlybird Delivery Systems, LLC

Gerald Chapman, a dispatcher, collapsed and died at work on December 25, 2011, from a pulmonary embolism of unknown cause. His estate filed a claim for death benefits, which the Workers’ Compensation Board established, applying the Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 presumption that unexplained accidents in the course of employment arise out of such employment. The employer appealed, arguing that an independent medical report by Vinay Das could not determine the cause of death and requested cross-examination of the medical examiner and access to decedent’s medical records. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter for the Board to address the employer's contention regarding the denial of access to medical records, while upholding the Board's application of the Section 21 presumption and denial of cross-examination.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsUnexplained DeathPulmonary Embolism CausationPresumption Against EmployerMedical Evidence AdmissibilityRight to Cross-ExamineMedical Record DiscoveryAppellate Division ReviewRemand for Further ProceedingsEmployment-Related Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 1984

Claim of Bennett v. G. O. Dairies, Inc.

A claimant was injured by gunshots after parking her car across the street from her workplace, where she regularly drove the store manager. She testified that she was paid from 7:00 a.m., and her transportation services for the manager were known and beneficial to the employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment, citing the presumption under Workers’ Compensation Law Section 21(1). The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing she had not commenced employment duties or reached the premises. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample basis to conclude her activities were job-related and that the presumption was not rebutted.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentSpecial Errand ExceptionPresumption of CausationArising Out Of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentInjury en routeShooting IncidentEmployer BenefitPaid Travel Time
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McClain v. Buffalo News

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a district manager’s death in a company van fire. Despite being on vacation, evidence showed the decedent performed work-related tasks, leading the Board to apply the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the death did not occur in the course of employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the decedent was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of his death, thus upholding the applicability of the Section 21 presumption.

Workers' CompensationAccidental DeathCourse of EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityUnwitnessed IncidentBusiness TravelVacation WorkAppellate ReviewCausal RelationshipEmployer Liability
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

Estate of Moody v. Quality Structures, Inc.

Decedent, a laborer, collapsed and died on his first day of work at a construction site while pouring and raking concrete. His estate applied for workers' compensation death benefits for his children. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the claim, invoking the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), as the employer failed to rebut it with substantial evidence. An independent medical report by cardiologist Stephen Nash attributed death to cardiac arrhythmia and enlarged heart, with lack of sleep as a contributory factor, but did not rule out work involvement. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the cause of the fatal arrhythmia unexplained and the employer's evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsCausally Related EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityCardiac ArrhythmiaEnlarged HeartIndependent Medical ReportConstruction Laborer DeathUnexplained CollapseRebuttal of PresumptionSubstantial Evidence
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,481 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