Ime Watchdog, Inc. v. Comm'r of Labor (In re Bloomfield), 528114

• Decision Date: 12 September 2019
• Docket Number: 528114
• Citation: 175 A.D.3d 1650,108 N.Y.S.3d 210
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the Claim of Sylvia BLOOMFIELD, Respondent. IME Watchdog, Inc., Appellant. v. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (Claim No. 1.) In the Matter of the Claim of David A. Bloomfield, Respondent. IME Watchdog, Inc., Appellant. v. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (Claim No. 2.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

175 A.D.3d 1650

108 N.Y.S.3d 210

In the MATTER OF the Claim of Sylvia BLOOMFIELD, Respondent.

IME Watchdog, Inc., Appellant.

v.Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (Claim No. 1.)

In the Matter of the Claim of David A. Bloomfield, Respondent.

IME Watchdog, Inc., Appellant.

v.Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (Claim No. 2.)

528114

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: August 22, 2019

Decided and Entered: September 12, 2019

Trivella & Forte, LLP, White Plains (Arthur J. Muller III of counsel), for appellant.

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York City (Anne M. Croslow of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Washington, D.C., of counsel, admitted pro hac vice), for Sylvia Bloomfield and David A. Bloomfield, respondents.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Rumsey, J. Appeal from four decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 12, 2018, which ruled that IME Watchdog, Inc. was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimants and others similarly situated.

IME Watchdog, Inc. provides personal injury law firms with non-attorney patient advocates, or "watchdogs," to accompany plaintiffs to independent medical examinations. IME paid claimants, and others, to serve as patient advocates. After claimants ceased providing services to IME, they filed applications for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor subsequently issued initial determinations finding that claimants were employees of IME, that they were entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits and that IME was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimants and those similarly situated. IME objected on the ground that claimants were independent contractors and, following a combined hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) sustained the Department's determinations. Upon administrative appeal, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed, and IME appeals.

"It is well-settled that whether an employment relationship exists within the meaning of the unemployment insurance law is a question of fact, no one factor is determinative and the determination of the appeal board, if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, is beyond further judicial review even though there is evidence in the record that would have supported a contrary decision" ( Matter of Empire State Towing & Recovery Assn., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 15 N.Y.3d 433, 437, 912 N.Y.S.2d 551, 938 N.E.2d 984 [2010] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted] ). Where professional services are involved, an employer-employee relationship exists where there is substantial evidence that the purported employer exercised overall control over important aspects of the work performed (see id. at 437–438, 912 N.Y.S.2d 551, 938 N.E.2d 984 ; Matter of Williams [Summit Health, Inc. -Commissioner of Labor], 146 A.D.3d 1210, 1210, 44 N.Y.S.3d 813 [2017] ; Matter of Lamar [Eden Tech., Inc. -Commissioner...