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. 2022 NY Slip Op 06518 [210 AD3d 1240]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

Matter of Hoyt (Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.--Commissioner of Labor)

Paul Revere Life Insurance Company appealed decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found the company liable for unemployment insurance contributions for claimant William K. Hoyt Jr. and others. The Board determined that Paul Revere's contract with the claimant did not satisfy all seven requirements of Labor Law § 511 (21) and that the parties' conduct was inconsistent with the statutory exclusion, thus establishing an employment relationship under the common-law test. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that both the written contract and the parties' actual conduct must conform to the statutory provisions for an insurance agent's services to be excluded from the definition of employment. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusion of an employment relationship, citing factors such as the claimant's work schedule, reporting requirements, and Paul Revere's training and oversight. The decision clarified that a mere 'verbatim inclusion or rote incantation' of the statutory provisions in a contract is insufficient if actual conduct contradicts them.

Unemployment InsuranceInsurance AgentsEmployment RelationshipCommon Law TestLabor Law § 511Statutory ExclusionAppellate ReviewUnemployment BenefitsInsurance Sales IndustryContractual Provisions
References
6
Case No. LAO 854789
Regular
Oct 09, 2007

Juana Manriquez vs. KENVIN, INC., dba CORDOVAN & GREY LTD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought extended temporary disability benefits, claiming a rotator cuff debridement during shoulder arthroscopy constituted an "amputation" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C). The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that "debridement" of an internal body part, like bone, does not meet the statutory definition of amputation. This definition requires the severance or removal of a limb or body appendage, conforming to the common understanding of the term.

Juana ManriquezKenvin IncState Compensation Insurance FundLAO 854789Petition for ReconsiderationAugust 6 2007 Findings and Ordershoulder arthroscopyamputationLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C)temporary disability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. ADJ3255503 (SDO0362975)
Regular
Mar 15, 2010

JOHN KOSICH vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a previous award, returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The core issue is whether the applicant deputy sheriff's hypertension constitutes "heart trouble" for the purposes of a statutory presumption of industrial injury. The WCAB found the agreed medical evaluator's opinion regarding "heart trouble" unclear, as it did not definitively address the broad legal definition of the term. Therefore, the case requires further medical evaluation and deposition to clarify the applicant's cardiac condition in relation to the legal standard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffHeart Trouble PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.5Labor Code Section 4663(e)ApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorDr. Daniel J. BresslerHypertensionGERD
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Mincione

This case concerns the interpretation of New York's burglary statutes, specifically Penal Law § 140.00 (2), regarding the definition of a 'building.' The issue on appeal was whether a van, primarily used by a greenhouse construction company to transport workers, materials, and tools, qualifies as a 'building' under the statute. The court concluded that such a van meets the statutory definition, either as an 'inclosed motor truck' or a 'vehicle used by persons for carrying on business therein.' This interpretation was found to be consistent with both legislative intent and historical judicial construction. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Burglary StatutesPenal LawStatutory InterpretationVehicle DefinitionCriminal LawNew York Court of AppealsAppellate ReviewLegislative IntentJudicial ConstructionBuilding Definition
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Chapman

The People charged the defendant with burglary in the third degree after he allegedly unlawfully entered two railway boxcars and stole property. The central legal issue is whether a railway boxcar constitutes a "building" under Penal Law § 140.00 (2). The court reviewed the extensive legislative history of the "building" definition, noting that "railway cars" were previously explicitly included but intentionally removed in the 1965 Penal Law revision and not reinserted in subsequent amendments. Despite arguments that boxcars could be considered "structures" or used for "carrying on business therein," the court found that such an interpretation would contradict clear legislative intent. Consequently, the court dismissed the burglary charges, concluding that the unlawful entry into the boxcars did not meet the statutory definition of burglary.

BurglaryStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentPenal LawRailway CarBoxcarDefinition of BuildingCriminal LawGrand Jury MinutesDismissal of Charges
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownstein v. LeCroy Corp.

This opinion addresses a third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The third-party defendant, plaintiff's employer, argued that the third-party complaint was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 because the plaintiff had not sustained a "grave injury." The court reviewed the statutory definition of "grave injury" following the 1996 amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Law, which aimed to repeal Dole v Dow Chem. Co. liability except in such cases. It determined that the plaintiff's alleged injuries, a displaced wrist fracture with 35% loss of use, did not meet the statutory requirement of "permanent and total" loss of use. Consequently, the court granted the third-party defendant's motion and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Summary JudgmentGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Third-Party ActionEmployer ImmunityStatutory ConstructionDole Liability RepealPersonal Injury ClaimsWrist Fracture InjuryLoss of Use
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2010

Claim of Castelli v. NRG

The claimant developed asbestosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due to asbestos exposure during employment, with a disablement date of November 13, 2008. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the application. This denial was based on 2007 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) that closed the Fund to claims with disablement dates after July 1, 2007. The employer appealed, arguing the time limit was inapplicable to dust disease claims and that statutory definitions supported their interpretation. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the statutory language and legislative history unequivocally intended to close the Fund to all new claims, including dust diseases, with disablement dates post-July 1, 2007.

asbestosasbestosischronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseSpecial Disability FundWorkers' Compensation Law § 15(8)2007 amendmentsdate of disablementdust diseaseoccupational diseasereimbursement claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Valentine v. American Airlines

A claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits as a surviving spouse after their domestic partner died in a work-related plane crash in November 2001. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and Board denied the claim, asserting that the term 'surviving spouse' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (1-a) exclusively refers to a person in a legally recognized marriage. The court affirmed this decision, ruling that domestic partners do not meet the statutory definition of a 'legal spouse' and finding no violation of equal protection under state or federal constitutions. It applied a rational basis test, concluding that the state has a legitimate interest in an efficient and consistent system for workers' compensation claims, served by the distinction based on legal marital status. The court also clarified that specific legislation for 9/11 victims does not broaden the general definition for all other cases.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsDomestic PartnershipSurviving Spouse DefinitionEqual Protection ChallengeRational Basis ReviewStatutory InterpretationSame-Sex PartnersNew York Workers' Compensation Law9/11 Victim CompensationLegislative Intent
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bahr v. New York Telephone Co.

This case involves a complaint initiated by Ricky Carnivale, later substituted by Morton Bahr, on behalf of the Communication Workers of America, against the New York Telephone Company. The complainant alleged a violation of Section 900-2.0 (subd. c) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, pertaining to the transportation of individuals to replace striking employees. The court meticulously analyzed the definitions within the Administrative Code, particularly focusing on what constitutes a 'strikebreaker' and the involvement of parties 'not directly involved in a strike.' The judge concluded that the New York Telephone Company was directly involved in the strike, rendering certain provisions inapplicable. Crucially, the court found a lack of evidence that the individuals brought in met the statutory definition of 'strikebreakers' who 'customarily and repeatedly' offer themselves for employment during a strike. Therefore, the court ruled that a complaint should not be issued against the defendant.

StrikeLabor DisputeStrikebreakersAdministrative CodeNew York City LawUnion RightsEmployer RightsComplaint DenialIndustrial RelationsSubstitute Complainant
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,396 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