] Matter of Clarke (Commr. of Labor) , 31 N.Y.S.3d 684 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                           State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered:   May 19, 2016                    520941
    520942
    ________________________________
    In the Matter of the Claim of
    KARYN CLARKE,
    Respondent.
    SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION,
    INC., Also Known as SELECT
    EMPLOYMENT SERVICES INC.,
    Appellant.
    COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,
    Respondent.
    (Claim No. 1.)                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    ________________________________
    In the Matter of the Claim of
    HELENE M. WALSH,
    Respondent.
    SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION,
    INC., Also Known as SELECT
    EMPLOYMENT SERVICES INC.,
    Appellant.
    COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,
    Respondent.
    (Claim No. 2.)
    ________________________________
    Calendar Date:   April 28, 2016
    Before:   McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr., Devine and Aarons, JJ.
    -2-                520941
    520942
    __________
    Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP, New York City (Daniel C.
    Moreland of counsel), for appellant.
    Michelle I. Rosien, Philmont, for Kayrn Clarke and Helene
    M. Walsh, respondents.
    __________
    Devine, J.
    Appeals (1) from four decisions of the Unemployment
    Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 17, 2014, which ruled, among
    other things, that Select Medical Corporation, Inc. was liable
    for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to
    claimants and others similarly situated, and (2) from four
    decisions of said Board, filed November 19, 2014, which denied a
    request by Select Medical Corporation, Inc. for reconsideration
    and/or reopening.
    The State Department of Education administers supplemental
    educational services to eligible children that include speech and
    occupational therapy (see 20 USC § 1400 et seq.; 20 USC § 6301 et
    seq.; Education Law § 4400 et seq.; Matter of Wright [Mid Is.
    Therapy Assoc. LLC–Commissioner of Labor], 134 AD3d 1216, 1217
    [2015]). Metro Therapy, Inc., a subsidiary of Select Medical
    Corporation, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
    agency), contracts with county health departments and school
    districts to provide those services to children. The agency
    accordingly maintains a database of certified service providers
    consisting of, as relevant here, licensed occupational
    therapists, including claimant Karyn Clarke, and occupational
    therapy assistants, including claimant Helene M. Walsh. Upon
    receiving a request from its governmental client, the agency
    contacts potential providers in that area via email or direct
    calls. The agency paid claimants directly pursuant to a fee
    schedule that was subject to negotiation, and billed its clients
    -3-                520941
    520942
    using invoices prepared by claimants documenting the services
    rendered. Claimants were not reimbursed for expenses and paid
    for their own liability insurance, obtained their own licenses
    and required certifications and did not receive employee
    benefits. Claimants signed independent contractor agreements
    with the agency that, among other things, permitted them to work
    for other agencies but prohibited them from soliciting the
    agency's clients while they worked for the agency and for a two-
    year period thereafter.
    Claimants applied for unemployment insurance benefits in
    2010. A combined hearing was held at which Walsh and the vice-
    president of Metro Therapy, Conrad Kupferman, testified. The
    Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined, in four
    decisions, that claimants and those similarly situated were
    employees of the agency, and that the agency was responsible for
    unemployment insurance contributions. The agency's subsequent
    request for reopening and/or reconsideration was denied by the
    Board in four decisions. The agency now appeals from all of the
    Board's decisions.
    While we are unpersuaded that the Board failed to explain
    its departure from somewhat similar prior precedent (see Matter
    of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 NY2d 516, 520
    [1985]), that does not end the matter before us. "Whether an
    employer-employee relationship exists is a factual determination
    for the Board, and its decision will be upheld if supported by
    substantial evidence" (Matter of John Lack Assoc., LLC
    [Commissioner of Labor], 112 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2013] [citations
    omitted]; see Matter of Empire Towing & Recovery Assn., Inc.
    [Commissioner of Labor], 15 NY3d 433, 437 [2010]; Matter of
    Salamanca Nursing Home [Roberts], 68 NY2d 901, 903 [1986]).
    Where, as here, "the details of the work performed are difficult
    to control because of considerations such as professional
    responsibilities, courts have applied the overall control test,
    which requires that the employer exercise control over important
    aspects of the services performed" (Matter of Wright [Mid Is.
    Therapy Assoc. LLC–Commissioner of Labor], 134 AD3d at 1217
    [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of
    Empire State Towing & Recovery Assn., Inc. [Commissioner of
    -4-                520941
    520942
    Labor], 15 NY3d at 437-438; Matter of Mattei [Horizon Healthcare
    Staffing Corp.—Commissioner of Labor], 265 AD2d 723, 723 [1999]).
    With regard to Clarke, Kupferman testified that she
    scheduled her own therapy sessions and was given no instruction
    or direction on how to perform her work, that there was no
    performance review by the agency other than occasional
    observations on school visits and that the state did not require
    review of her work. Clarke could accept or refuse a particular
    assignment and was permitted to accept referrals from other
    agencies. The reports that therapists prepared for each child
    were required by the governmental client to document that the
    child was receiving the required services and for future
    planning, and the reports and daily invoices were only used by
    the agency to pay the therapists and obtain reimbursement from
    its clients for services rendered.   Therefore, while the agency
    may have exercised incidental control over Clarke and other
    occupational therapists, such as requiring a noncompete clause,
    substantial evidence does not support the finding that the agency
    exercised overall control over any important aspect of the
    services provided by Clarke (or other occupational therapists) so
    as to establish an employer-employee relationship (see Matter of
    Wright [Mid Is. Therapy Assoc. LLC–Commissioner of Labor], 134
    AD3d at 1217-1218; Matter of Jean-Pierre [Queens Perioperative
    Med. Assoc. PLLC–Commissioner of Labor], 119 AD3d 1206, 1207-1208
    [2014]; cf. Matter of Harold [Leonard's Transp.–Commissioner of
    Labor], 133 AD3d 1069, 1070-1071 [2015], lv dismissed 26 NY3d
    1136 [2016]).
    We reach a different conclusion with regard to Walsh, an
    occupational therapy assistant, deferring to the Board's
    determination to credit her testimony (see Matter of Sciortino
    [Salina Free Lib.–Commissioner of Labor], 129 AD3d 1415, 1416
    [2015]).1 Walsh required supervision in her role as an assistant
    and reported to the service coordinators employed by the agency,
    who were "constantly" in contact with her, telling her "what to
    1
    Walsh testified that her testimony and knowledge applied
    only to her own work as an occupational therapy assistant and
    that she could not testify regarding occupational therapists.
    -5-                  520941
    520942
    do" in numerous respects and addressing problems with various
    aspects of her work. They also made it clear that she could not
    turn down assignments, repeatedly telling her that she was
    required to take assignments if she wanted to continue working at
    a particular school district. Substantial evidence therefore
    supports the finding that the agency exercised sufficient overall
    control over important aspects of the work of Walsh and those
    similarly situated so as to establish an employer-employee
    relationship (see Matter of Strauss [RMC Research Corp.–
    Commissioner of Labor], 135 AD3d 1268, 1270 [2016]; Matter of
    LaValley [West Firm, PLLC–Commissioner of Labor], 120 AD3d 1498,
    1499 [2014]; Matter of Mackey [Prometric Inc.–Commissioner of
    Labor], 120 AD3d 1493, 1495 [2014]).
    As a final matter, the agency has not raised any arguments
    in its briefs regarding the Board's denial of its application to
    reopen or reconsider and, as such, has abandoned any claims in
    that regard (see Matter of Perez v Licea, 74 AD3d 1672, 1674 n 1
    [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 711 [2010]).
    McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Aarons, JJ., concur.
    ORDERED that the two decisions filed July 17, 2014 with
    respect to claimant Karyn Clarke are reversed, without costs, and
    matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for
    further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.
    ORDERED that the two decisions filed July 17, 2014 with
    respect to claimant Helene N. Walsh and the four decisions filed
    November 19, 2004 are affirmed, without costs.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 520941

Citation Numbers: 139 A.D.3d 1285, 31 N.Y.S.3d 684

Judges: Devine, McCarthy, Garry, Egan, Aarons

Filed Date: 5/19/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024