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
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

Graziano v. 110 Sand Co.

The case involves an injured truck driver, originally employed by Horan Sand & Gravel, who was assigned to work at 110 Sand Company's site. After sustaining injuries on the job, he accepted workers' compensation benefits from Horan. Subsequently, he and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against 110 Sand. 110 Sand moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was its 'special employee' and thus, the acceptance of workers' compensation benefits from Horan barred the lawsuit against them. The Supreme Court granted this motion, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the evidence supported the finding of a special employment relationship, and under Workers' Compensation Law, an injured worker who accepts benefits from their general employer is precluded from suing their special employer for the same injuries.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNew York LawEmployer LiabilityDerived Claim
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smallwood v. Mereda Realty Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the employment relationship of a building superintendent, the claimant, who sustained injuries. The Board determined that the claimant was both a general employee of Pueblo Nuevo Associates, the building owner, and a special employee of Mereda Realty Corporation, the managing company, holding both entities 50% liable for the claim. The claimant appealed this determination, specifically contesting the employment relationship with Pueblo Nuevo Associates. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of a general employment relationship with Pueblo Nuevo Associates, even though other evidence could have supported a different conclusion.

Employment RelationshipGeneral EmployeeSpecial EmployeeDual EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionBuilding SuperintendentRent-free Apartment
References
11
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
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
Jan 14, 2000

Syku v. La Barranca Realty Corp.

The plaintiff, a general employee of Vikrok Associates, was injured while working on premises owned by the defendant third-party plaintiff. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the plaintiff was a special employee, thereby invoking the Workers' Compensation Law as a bar to the action. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court finding that the defendant controlled the plaintiff's work and directly paid him, thus establishing a special employment relationship. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, upholding the defendant's defense under the Workers' Compensation Law.

personal injuryspecial employmentworkers' compensationsummary judgmentliabilitygeneral employerappellate reversalpremises liabilitytort lawthird-party plaintiff
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pena v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal and cross-appeal regarding a jury's finding that plaintiff Pedro Pena was not a special employee of the defendant, following an accident resulting in personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, had previously set aside the jury verdict and ordered a new trial. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's decision to set aside the jury verdict, thereby upholding the jury's original finding. Additionally, the defendant's cross-appeal for judgment as a matter of law was denied. The court emphasized that determining a special employment relationship is a question of fact for the jury, with several factors to consider. Ultimately, costs were awarded to the plaintiffs, affirming the jury's initial determination.

Special EmploymentWorkers' CompensationJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury DamagesEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityQuestion of FactTrial Court ReversalCosts Awarded
References
17
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

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
Showing 1-10 of 11,327 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