You are here: / / MEDICAL LAB DRIVERS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS...

MEDICAL LAB DRIVERS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined drivers for a medical lab (Empire City) were employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

​

Although some of the control exercised by Empire City was occasioned by the regulated nature of the work performed by the drivers, many aspects of control exercised by Empire City went well beyond such regulation … . Empire City assigned delivery routes based on driver availability, and the drivers were required to make the stops and deliveries along those routes as specified by Empire City. To this end, Empire City provided the drivers with route sheets containing instructions for pickups and, on occasion, imposed pickup times for its clients. Drivers were required to make same-day delivery of any specimens that were picked up and, at the conclusion of each day, drivers were required to submit route sheets to Empire City and confirm that no specimens remained in their vehicles. Empire City also provided the drivers with assistance if they experienced difficulty making a delivery and, if a driver was unable to report to work and find a substitute driver, Empire City asked for advance notice so that it could cover the route by assigning another driver of its choosing to the route. Empire City provided supplies, including ice boxes and ice packs, to facilitate the deliveries and handled client complaints. Matter of Raupov (Empire City Labs., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 08068, Third Dept 11-16-17

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (MEDICAL LAB DRIVERS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/DRIVERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, MEDICAL LAB DRIVERS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

/by
You might also like
DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDING; HERE THE DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE AND HIS REMEDY WAS LIMITED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THIS ACTION (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Raised About Whether Injury Incurred by State Trooper; Paramedic when Removing Injured Person from Crashed Car Was Covered “Occurrence” Under Trooper; Paramedic’s Supplementary Uninsured-Underinsured Motorist Policy
HEART ATTACK DEEMED WORK-RELATED.
ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Good, Fact-Based Analysis of the Requirements for Adverse Possession
PAROLE PROPERLY RESCINDED BASED UPON PETITIONER’S BEHAVIOR AT THE RESCISSION HEARING AND VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS PROVIDED AFTER PETITIONER HAD BEEN RELEASED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL FROM A MAKESHIFT PLATFORM ON A LULL (FORKLIFT) USED TO REACH ELEVATED AREAS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE HOMEOWNER WHO LEASED THE LULL AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT). ​
TENANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SUE LANDLORD’S INSURER FOR DENIAL OF A PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM, TENANT HAD NOT PROCURED A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE LANDLORD, A PREREQUISITE FOR A DIRECT SUIT AGAINST THE INSURER (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS... BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT...