You are here: / / THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE...
,

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A TRUCKING COMPANY AND A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH THE TRUCKING COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARD WAS PROPERLY SPLIT BETWEEN THEM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that claimant, a tractor trailer driver, was an employee of Eaton's Trucking Service and a special employee of Quality Carrier, with which Eaton had entered a contract. Therefore the Workers' Compensation Board properly found Eaton and Quality were each responsible for 50% of the workers' compensation awards:

… [W]e find that substantial evidence supports the Board's factual determination that claimant was a special employee of Quality … . Looking at “the underlying facts of the parties' relationship” … , the evidence established that Eaton and Quality had an arrangement whereby Eaton's drivers, including claimant, hauled products exclusively for Quality's customers and did so in furtherance of Quality's business, and that Eaton operated under Quality's logo and license without which Eaton could not have conducted its hauling operation. Their arrangement was the type of arrangement in which the “employee and equipment of [the] general employer were necessarily used and temporarily assigned to work for th[e] business” of the special employer, which has been recognized as creating a special employment relationship … . While Quality did not control the day-to-day oversight of claimant, this is not dispositive as Eaton and claimant operated entirely under Quality's authority and pursuant to its policies. As a result, Quality had sufficient control over the “details and ultimate result” of claimant's work, and Quality's working relationship with claimant was “sufficient in kind and degree so that [Quality] may be deemed [to be his] employer” … . Matter of Mitchell v Eaton's Trucking Serv., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06839, Third Dept 10-11-18

WORKERS' COMPENSATION (THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A TRUCKING COMPANY AND A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH THE TRUCKING COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION AWARD WAS PROPERLY SPLIT BETWEEN THEM (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A TRUCKING COMPANY AND A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH THE TRUCKING COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION AWARD WAS PROPERLY SPLIT BETWEEN THEM (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL EMPLOYEE (THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A TRUCKING COMPANY AND A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH THE TRUCKING COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION AWARD WAS PROPERLY SPLIT BETWEEN THEM (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
EXPOSURE TO AND CONTRACTION OF COVID-19 IN THE WORKPLACE IS AN UNUSUAL HAZARD WHICH IS COMPENSABLE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMMPENSATION LAW; HOWEVER HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF DECEDENT CONTRACTED COVID-19 AT HIS WORKPLACE (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
SPECULATIVE MEDICAL OPINION DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING CLAIMANT’S PRIOR EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR ASBESTOS-RELATED MESOTHELIOMA, DESPITE EVIDENCE OF EXPOSURE AT THE PRIOR EMPLOYER (THIRD DEPT).
IN THIS ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CASE, A WITNESS’S VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY FROM PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THE PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CASE OR IN THE DEFENSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
DVDs SUBMITTED BY THE VICTIM’S FAMILY MEMBERS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE IN CONNECTION WITH WHETHER PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED PAROLE, BECAUSE THE DVDs DID NOT PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE, THE PAROLE BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE RESCINDED ITS DECISION TO SET A RELEASE DATE (THIRD DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE RESTITUTION TO THE PROSECUTOR, MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
Zoning Board’s Interpretation of Village Ordinances Upheld—Keeping of Chickens Is Not an Allowed “Residential Use”
Petitioner’s Knowledge the Child Was Not His When He Signed the Paternity Acknowledgment Precluded Vacation of the Acknowledgment

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FIREFIGHTER’S RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE NEGLIGENCE SUIT BY A POLICE OFFICER... CLAIMANT’S TERMINATION FROM HER EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY BASED UPON TWO...