In the Matter of the Claim ofLANA DILLON,Respondent.MEMORANDUM AND ORDERHUMAN CARE LLC,Appellant.COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,Respondent.________________________________Calendar Date: June 1, 2018Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Rumsey, JJ.__________Mischel & Horn, PC, New York City (Scott T. Horn ofcounsel), for appellant.Teresa C. Mulliken, Harpersfield, for Lana Dillon,respondent.Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, New York City(Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor,respondent.__________Clark, J.Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment InsuranceAppeal Board, filed July 19, 2016, which ruled, among otherthings, that Human Care LLC was liable for additionalunemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid toclaimant and others similarly situated.Claimant, a registered nurse, was engaged as a field nursesupervisor by Human Care LLC, an agency that provides home healthcare services to its clients. The Unemployment Insurance AppealBoard determined, among other things, that claimant was anemployee of Human Care and that Human Care was liable forunemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid toclaimant and others similarly situated. Human Care appeals.We affirm. “Whether an employee-employer relationshipexists is a factual question to be resolved by the Board and wewill not disturb its determination when it is supported bysubstantial evidence in the record” (Matter of Jennings [AmericanDelivery Solution, Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d 1152,1152 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];accord Matter of Link [Cantor & Pecorella, Inc.-Commissioner ofLabor], 153 AD3d 1061, 1062 [2017], appeal dismissed 31 NY3d 946[2018]). “[W]here, as here, the work of medical professionals isinvolved, the pertinent inquiry is whether the purported employerretained overall control over the work performed” (Matter ofMackey [Prometric Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 120 AD3d 1493,1494 [2014]; accord Matter of Lawlor [ExamOne World Wide Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 130 AD3d 1345, 1346 [2015]). Moreover,“an organization which screens the services of professionals,pays them at a set rate and then offers their services to clientsexercises sufficient control to create an employmentrelationship” (Matter of Ivy League Tutoring Connection, Inc.[Commissioner of Labor], 119 AD3d 1260, 1260 [2014] [internalquotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Ryan [LaCruz Radiation Consultants, Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 138 AD3d1324, 1325 [2016]).Human Care maintains a list of registered nurses,designated as field nurse supervisors, who provide home healthcare services to its patients on an on-call basis. Human Carehired claimant as a field nurse supervisor following an interviewand screening of her experience and license credentials. Uponhiring claimant, Human Care required claimant to sign a jobsummary detailing the various duties and responsibilities of afield nurse supervisor, which included completing clinical andprogress notes, informing Human Care’s Director of PatientServices of any changes in a patient’s condition and needs andsubmitting all required paperwork to the Director within 48 hoursof a visit. The job summary further stated that field nursesupervisors reported to the Director and were required to followHuman Care policies and procedures. Claimant was provided withHuman Care’s handbook of policies and procedures. With respectto individual assignments, the Director would contact claimantwhen a client needed services and advise what services were to beprovided. Claimant was free to accept or decline any assignmentand, if she was unable to complete an assignment that she hadaccepted, Human Care would find a replacement. Claimant wasrequired to complete and submit a written “base assessment” ofthe client to the Director for review. Additionally, Human Careset the fee paid to claimant for her services, which was notnegotiable, and billed its clients or the clients’ insurancecompanies for claimant’s services. Considering the foregoing, itis our view that substantial evidence supports the Board’sdecision that Human Care retained sufficient overall control overthe work performed by claimant to establish an employer-employeerelationship, notwithstanding evidence in the record that couldsupport a contrary result (see Matter of Scinta [ExamOne WorldWide Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 113 AD3d 959, 961 [2014];Matter of Skeete [Cooper Sq. Nurses Registry-Commissioner ofLabor], 253 AD2d 926, 926 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 802 [1999]).McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine and Rumsey, JJ., concur.ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.
