State Insurance Fund and Indictments: Violation of 14th Amendment
Harry Dorvilier timely filed a pro se motion to reargue and its supporting affidavit which the Judge never responded to the motion. Later the Judge claimed on December 23rd, 2010 that Mr. Dorvilier withdrew the motion which is not true. Dorvilier never withdrew his pro se motion to reargue. Therefore, the district court erroneously failed to address Mr. Dorvilier’s motion to reargue by assuming it was withdrawn – without any remote basis in the record for such an assumption and thereby denied his right of access to the civil courts.
The pro-se motion comprises key information about the violation of law by attorney Jonathan Bernstein. Harry’s Nurses Registry Inc. pays millions of dollars for workers’ compensation (see canceled checks). Therefore, HNR and its corporate officer Harry Dorvilier can not steal the money as HNR already paid worker compensation. However, Mr. William Gurin, director of the State Insurance Board corrupted with attorney Bernstein together and changed 13 felonies for HNR and 13 felonies for Harry Dorvilier illegally. Which is a violation of the 14th Amendment of Harry’s Nurses Registry and Harry Dorvilier.
Bernstein’s reply only adds to the intrigue and hints at potential dismissiveness. While he acknowledges the argument that state law differentiates between home care and staffing agencies, he leans on the presumed superiority of federal law over state law as a defense. This response, though technical, fails to address the core issue at hand: Why were HNR and Dorvilier charged with felonies when evidence of their compliance was clear? See the response. Furthermore, Bernstein’s reminder about the court order demanding a response to discovery demands, despite Dorvilier’s intent to seek reconsideration, seems more a threat than a call for legal clarity.
Bernstein replied that we have a deposition notice outstanding. I suggest that your new counsel contact me to discuss this. With respect to your insistence that the summary judgment motion, in this case, was decided incorrectly because state law distinguishes between home care and staffing agencies as much as two sets of lawyers were apparently unable to persuade you that federal law displaces inconsistent state law, I acknowledge that nothing I say will make you realize the error of your argument. Please be aware that you are currently under court order to respond to discovery demand notwithstanding your intention to seek reconsideration of summary judgment. Read full letter
Case Analysis: Case #406555/07 Judge Tingling’s Interpretations and Findings
1. Duration and Short Premium Rate of the State Insurance Fund Policy: The state insurance fund policy covered the period from February 7, 2006, to June 19, 2007. Given that this policy spanned more than a year, the short premium rate doesn’t apply in this context.
2. Earnings and Employment Status Interpretation: Judge Tingling concluded that 11 employees earned a collective sum of $301,280 (refer to Plaintiff Exhibit B, p4). However, there are notable details regarding this finding (Read the Order):
2a. Employment of Independent Contractors: The defendant reportedly hired a significant number of independent contractors. Between February 7 and June 30, 2006, these contractors were collectively compensated $2,457,483. Judge Tingling’s interpretation highlights that field nurses were considered independent contractors under New York state law. Therefore, Harry’s obligation for workers’ compensation was restricted to the 11 individuals who were salaried employees working daily in the office. Read the Letter between US DOL and NY DOL, Partnership Agreement
3. Overlapping Insurance Policies: There’s a noted overlap in the insurance coverage periods. The state insurance fund policy was valid from February 7, 2006, to June 19, 2007. Meanwhile, the AIG insurance policies were effective from May 27, 2007, to May 27, 2008. This results in a double coverage scenario for 23 days (from May 27, 2007, to June 19, 2007) for both W2 and 1099 tax classifications. This dual coverage equates to a sum that shouldn’t be considered for a premium. Ideally, the policy that exceeded a year should have been automatically revoked upon receiving the letter from AIG on May 27, 2007, declaring their policy’s start date. Moreover, based on the communication from the New York State Insurance Fund and Judge Tingling’s interpretation, workers’ compensation isn’t mandated for 1099 nurses. Read more: Document 1, Document 2, Document 3: Malicious Prosecution, Document 4: Indictment of State Insurance Board
4. Assessment of Malicious Prosecution and Case Merit: According to Judge Tingling’s assessment, the plaintiff’s request for a summary judgment was completely rejected. He determined that the plaintiff’s case lacked substantial merit.
In summary, this case, as adjudicated by Judge Tingling, brings to the forefront issues related to insurance policy overlaps, the classification of workers, and the credibility of the claims presented. The nuanced findings underline the intricacies of legal interpretations and their implications.
Victory of Harry’s Nurses Registry
Harry’s Nurses Registry Inc. (HNR) is a staffing agency specializing in healthcare services. The New York State Appellate Division upheld the decision that the company’s healthcare workers should not be considered employees for the purpose of unemployment insurance contributions. The court’s decision stems from a lengthy legal process involving audits for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010. The Department of Labor had initially assessed HNR for additional unemployment contributions, a move that HNR strenuously objected to. Following hearings, an Administrative Law Judge sustained HNR’s objections and overruled the Department’s initial assessment. This was later challenged but ultimately affirmed by the Appellate Division. Read the decision
The Court acknowledged that the Board was not bound to conform to a prior unappealed decision from 1999, which found HNR’s healthcare workers to be independent contractors. It also emphasized that the current case presented additional factors that were not present or identified in the prior 1999 decision, thereby providing a reasonable basis for the decision in favor of HNR. The ruling thus marks a significant legal and operational victory for HNR, reinforcing its longstanding position that its healthcare workers are independent contractors, not employees subject to additional unemployment insurance contributions. This decision not only alleviates the financial burden on HNR but also sets a precedent that could impact similar cases in the future.
However, the State Insurance Board and its director Mr. Gurin violated the decision by pursuing an unlawful case against Harry’s Nurses Registry Inc. Mr. Gurin and the State Insurance Board should return the payment that Harry’s Nurses Registry Inc. paid.
Inconsistency Policy by the Department of Labor
Harry’s Nurses Registry Inc. (HNR) stands as a glaring example of the inconsistencies and ambiguities plaguing the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) policies on the classification of employees versus independent contractors. The Coalition to Promote Independent Entrepreneurs expressed disappointment when the DOL withdrew its final regulations, which aimed to clarify this contentious issue. These regulations would have provided a five-factor test, focusing on elements like control over work and opportunity for profit, to determine a worker’s status. The withdrawal, coupled with contradictory statements from the DOL, serves to highlight the urgent need for legislative clarity. In cases like Gayle v. Harry’s Nurses Registry Inc., the lack of a straightforward and consistent framework for classifying workers puts companies like HNR, dedicated to ethical practices and workforce empowerment, at a disadvantage, vulnerable to varied interpretations and potential injustices.
Read More about Coalition Disappointed in DOL’s Withdrawal of FLSA IC Regulations
Read More about Employee or Independent Contractor? Enforcement Efforts Increase in the Home Health Care Industry
State Insurance Fund and Indictments: Violation of 6th Amendment
In a legal system where the rule of law and the protection of constitutional rights are paramount, the case against Harry’s Nurses Registry Inc. (HNR) and its corporate officer Harry Dorvilier presents a troubling scenario of alleged Sixth Amendment violations. The indictment, integral to this case, lacked a critical component – it was unsigned by William Gurin, Inspector General of the NYS Worker’s Compensation Board. This glaring oversight not only questions the legitimacy of the indictment (Case: IG #37534) dated February 2nd, 2010, but also raises serious concerns about the violation of the Sixth Amendment rights of HNR and Harry Dorvilier.
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a fair trial and the right to confront one’s accusers. In the context of HNR and Mr. Dorvilier’s case, the unsigned indictment fails to meet the basic legal standards, potentially compromising their right to a fair legal process. The procedural anomaly where the indictment was issued without the proper authorization suggests a breach of the due process that is fundamental to the American judicial system. Further compounding the situation, the missteps continued with Harry Dorvilier’s pro se motion to reargue, which was never adequately addressed by the court. Despite Dorvilier’s claims that he never withdrew his motion, the judge assumed its withdrawal without substantial evidence, denying Dorvilier his rightful access to the courts. This disregard for proper legal procedure and the rights of the defendant further exemplifies the Sixth Amendment concerns.
In addition, the case is mired in financial and legal inconsistencies. HNR, which had already paid millions in workers’ compensation, was inexplicably accused of financial malfeasance, a claim that seems at odds with the evidence of compliance. The collaboration between the State Insurance Board director and attorney Bernstein in levying multiple felonies against HNR and Dorvilier further clouds the legal waters, suggesting a possible violation of the Fourteenth Amendment as well.
The response from Bernstein, focusing on technicalities rather than addressing the substantive issues at hand, does little to clarify the situation. His emphasis on federal law over state law, and the threat implicit in his reminder about the court order for discovery demands, detracts from the need for legal clarity and fairness. Judge Tingling’s interpretations in the case, examining aspects such as insurance policy durations, employee status, and overlapping policies, reveal the complexities and nuances of the legal proceedings. However, the overall conduct of the case, particularly the procedural irregularities and the seeming disregard for the defendant’s constitutional rights, paints a picture of a legal process that strayed from its foundational principles.
The victory of HNR in the New York State Appellate Division, affirming the independent contractor status of its healthcare workers, underscores the organization’s commitment to ethical practices. Yet, the pursuit of an unlawful case by the State Insurance Board and its director highlights the need for consistency and fairness in legal proceedings. This case, therefore, stands not only as a legal battle but also as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to constitutional rights and the principles of justice. The Sixth Amendment, designed to protect these very rights, appears to have been overlooked, leaving a shadow on the integrity of the legal process in this instance.
Read the Profile of Attorneys Involved in the Case
