Calendar Date: April 30, 2018Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Pritzker, JJ.__________Tully Rinckey, PLLC, Albany (Graig F. Zappia of counsel),for appellant.Martin, Harding & Mazzotti, LLP, Albany (Crystle A. Wattsof counsel), for Mark Garner, respondent.Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, New York City(Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for Workers’ Compensation Board,respondent.__________Lynch, J.Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board,filed March 8, 2017, which ruled that claimant was an employee ofChristian Contractors, Inc.Claimant, a carpenter, filed an amended claim for workers’compensation benefits asserting that he had sustained injuries onDecember 9, 2015 while working for Christian Contractors, Inc.Following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowedthe claim, finding that claimant was an independent contractorand not an employee. Upon review, the Workers’ CompensationBoard reversed, finding that claimant had an employer-employeerelationship with Christian Contractors, Inc. The Board restoredthe case to the calender for further development of the record onthe remaining issues. Christian Contractors, Inc. appealed.As a general rule, “piecemeal review of issues in workers’compensation cases should be avoided” (Matter of Bucci v New YorkCity Tr. Auth., 154 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2017] [internal quotationmarks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Covert v NiagaraCounty, 146 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2017]). Where “a Board decision isinterlocutory in nature and does not dispose of all of thesubstantive issues or reach a potentially dispositive thresholdlegal question, it is not appealable” (Matter of Covert v NiagaraCounty, 146 AD3d at 1066 [internal quotation marks, brackets andcitation omitted]; see Matter of Bellantoni v City of N.Y. Sch.Food & Nutrition Servs., 127 AD3d 1350, 1350 [2015]). Here,claimant filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits and“the Board’s determination of whether an employee-employerrelationship exists does not create a threshold legal issue so asto permit review by the Court prior to the Board’s final decisionof the claim” (Matter of Estate of Yoo v Rockwell CompoundingAssoc., Inc., 158 AD3d 921, 922 [2018]; see Matter of Ogbuagu vNgbadi, 61 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2009]; compare Matter of Schwenger vNYU Sch. of Medicine, 126 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2015], lv dismissed 26NY3d 962 [2015]). As the Board’s nonfinal, interlocutorydecision is reviewable on an appeal of the Board’s final decisionon the claim, the instant appeal is dismissed (see Matter of theEstate of Yoo v Rockwell Compounding Assoc., Inc., 158 AD3d at922; Matter of Covert v Niagara County, 146 AD3d at 1066; Matterof Ogbuagu v Ngbadi, 61 AD3d at 1199; Matter of Karam v ExecutiveCharge/Love Taxi, 284 AD2d 599, 599 [2001]).McCarthy, J.P., Devine, Clark and Pritzker, JJ., concur.ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
