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 the Professional Career Center, Inc.

The Professional Career Center, Inc., offering real estate education, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Commissioner of Labor's assessment for additional unemployment insurance contributions. The assessment stemmed from a determination that the Center's teachers were employees, not independent contractors. Despite a consulting agreement, the court found substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship. This was based on the Center's control over hiring, payment, quality, student recruitment, tuition, scheduling, and curriculum adherence. The court concluded that these factors supported the finding, affirming the decision against Professional Career Center, Inc.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorProfessional EducationReal Estate LicensingLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewContributionsAudit
References
3
Case No. ADJ10779733
Regular
Feb 26, 2020

THOMAS WILSON vs. FLORIDA MARLINS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a professional athlete's workers' compensation claim where the central issue is whether California jurisdiction is precluded by Labor Code sections 3600.5(c) and (d) concerning out-of-state athletes. The Board found these exemptions inapplicable because the applicant had multiple California contracts of hire during his cumulative trauma injury period, aligning with California's general jurisdictional rules. The Board interpreted the intent of the statutory amendments to be the limitation of claims by out-of-state athletes with minimal California contacts, not those with established hire in the state. Therefore, the applicant's claim may proceed in California.

Labor Code Section 3600.5Professional Athlete ExceptionCumulative TraumaContract of HireJurisdictionOut-of-State EmployersCalifornia-Based TeamDuty DaysTemporary WorkLegislative Intent
References
13
Case No. ADJ9519790
Regular
Sep 10, 2019

MARK CARREON vs. CLEVELAND INDIANS, SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS

This case concerns the Cleveland Indians' petition for reconsideration, arguing that California workers' compensation jurisdiction is barred under Labor Code Section 3600.5(d) due to the applicant's last year of employment with the Jackson Diamond Cats. The Board affirmed the original award, finding the Indians failed to meet their burden of proving the exemption. The applicant's employment with the Diamond Cats was not established as "professional athlete" employment under the statute, nor was it proven that the Diamond Cats qualified for exemption under Section 3600.5(c) as the applicant did not work in California for that team. Furthermore, the Indians failed to identify or prove any other law exempting the Diamond Cats from California jurisdiction.

Labor Code 3600.5WCAB jurisdictionprofessional athlete exemptioncumulative trauma injuryMark CarreonCleveland IndiansSan Francisco GiantsCIGAGallagher BassettJackson Diamond Cats
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Moody

Petitioner Bobba Jean Moody, a certified clinical social worker, applied pro se for an exemption from jury service in New York County. She argued that despite not being explicitly enumerated in Judiciary Law § 512, clinical social workers should be exempt due to public policy and equal protection grounds, as they provide essential mental health services comparable to other exempted professionals like psychologists and psychiatrists. Moody highlighted her full-time role at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and part-time private practice, asserting that her absence would disrupt critical public services. The court, acknowledging the legislative intent to exempt essential healthcare professionals, agreed that a certified social worker engaged in full-time clinical practice should be exempt. Consequently, the court granted a personal exemption to Bobba Jean Moody and urged the State Legislature to amend Judiciary Law § 512 to include clinical social workers.

Jury ExemptionCertified Social WorkerClinical Social WorkHealth Care ProfessionalsJudiciary LawEqual ProtectionPublic PolicyMental Health ServicesPsychiatric InstitutePro Se Application
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2016

Padilla v. Sheldon Rabin, M.D., P.C.

Raul Padilla, an ophthalmic technician, filed a collective action against his employer, Sheldon Rabin, M.D., P.C., and its owner, Dr. Sheldon Rabin, seeking retroactive overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The central issue was whether Padilla was an 'exempt' salaried professional employee. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court found that Padilla did not meet the 'salary basis' test required for the FLSA's learned professional exemption, thus granting his motion for summary judgment on the FLSA claim regarding this exemption. However, issues regarding the 'primary duty' test for the NYLL exemption, statute of limitations (willfulness), and liquidated damages were deemed triable issues for a jury.

FLSANYLLOvertime PayExempt EmployeeLearned Professional ExemptionSalary Basis TestPrimary Duty TestSummary JudgmentWillfulnessLiquidated Damages
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Handel

HSBC Bank USA objected to Joel M. Handel's exemptions of his interest in a profit-sharing plan and three life insurance policies in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. HSBC argued that Handel's actions, including unauthorized withdrawals and false representations as a trustee, violated the plan's terms, ERISA, and IRC Section 401(a), thereby rendering his interest non-exempt. The court acknowledged Handel's violations but, citing Patterson v. Shumate, ruled that an anti-alienation provision enforceable under ERISA excludes the plan interest from the bankruptcy estate, irrespective of operational compliance or tax-qualified status. Additionally, the court found Handel adequately identified the life insurance policies. Consequently, HSBC's motion was denied, preserving Handel's exemptions.

BankruptcyERISAPension PlanExemptionAnti-alienationDebtor's EstateIRC 401(a)Life InsuranceDebtor's ConductFiduciary Duty
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Domino v. Professional Consulting, Inc.

Gregory Domino, a carpenter employed by Carlin Contracting Co., Inc., was injured while working on a Village of Mount Kisco water treatment facility, allegedly due to the installation of floor panels hoisted by a crane owned by Smedley Crane Service, Inc. He and his wife commenced an action for personal injuries against Professional Consulting, Inc. (PCI), the construction manager, and Smedley. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to PCI, finding it was not a "contractor" or "owner" under Labor Law sections 240(1) or 241, nor liable under Labor Law section 200 or common-law negligence due to lack of supervisory authority. The appellate court affirmed this part of the decision, noting PCI's contracts expressly precluded it from supervising the work or safety procedures. However, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to Smedley, as Smedley failed to establish it lacked authority to control or supervise the crane's rigging activity, thus the appellate court reversed that portion of the decision.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentReargumentConstruction Manager LiabilityCrane OperationWorker SafetyAgency LawStatutory LiabilityPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levine v. Unity Health System

Plaintiffs, Primary Therapists, sued Unity Health Systems, alleging violations of the FLSA and New York Labor Law for misclassifying them as exempt professionals and failing to pay overtime. Unity moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs were correctly classified as learned professionals. The court found that the plaintiffs met both the salary and primary duty requirements for the bona fide professional exemption, requiring a master's degree and state licensure as prolonged specialized intellectual instruction. Consequently, the court granted Unity's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

FLSANew York Labor LawSummary JudgmentProfessional ExemptionOvertime PayWage and HourPrimary TherapistsLearned ProfessionalSalary Basis TestDuties Test
References
4
Case No. CA 12-01143
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

PROFESSIONAL, CLERICAL, TECHNICAL, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, concerning an arbitration award. The petitioner, Professional, Clerical, Technical, Employees Association, sought to vacate an arbitration award, which the Supreme Court, Erie County, initially granted. The respondent, Board of Education for Buffalo City School District, appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, denying the petition to vacate and granting the cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award. The court concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding employee qualifications for new positions was neither irrational nor an exceeding of authority. The arbitrator's decision upheld the supervisor's discretion in assessing qualifications beyond minimum requirements for Assistant Management Analyst positions.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewLabor LawAppellate DivisionSupervisor DiscretionEmployee QualificationsContract InterpretationNew York LawSchool District
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 964 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