CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ1182220 (WCK 0044768) ADJ144318 (WCK 0044769)
Regular
Feb 27, 2009

RICHARD CRUZ vs. AMERICAN PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC., CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award to Richard Cruz. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) who found that the applicant sustained a specific industrial spinal injury on December 16, 1997, and a cumulative trauma spinal injury through January 28, 1998, while employed by American Protective Services. The WCJ found the applicant credible and relied on the opinions of two medical evaluators, Dr. Brose and Dr. Lavorgna, who ultimately supported the finding of industrial injuries. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination and incorporated the WCJ's report, denying the defendant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedWCJ ReportCredibility FindingIndustrial InjurySpecific InjuryCumulative TraumaSpine InjurySecurity GuardAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris v. American Protective Services of New York, Inc.

Raleigh L. Hams sued American Protective Services of New York, Inc. alleging race, sex, and disability discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and defamation under Title VII and the ADA. The court, presided over by Chief Judge Larimer, granted in part and denied in part APS's motion to dismiss. Harris's claims for race, disability, and sexual harassment were dismissed with prejudice due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies or state a claim. His retaliation and defamation claims were dismissed with leave to replead. APS's motion to dismiss the disparate treatment sex discrimination claim was denied. All of Harris's motions to amend, vacate an arbitrator's decision, and for a preliminary injunction were denied.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADARace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationSexual HarassmentDefamationMotion to Dismiss
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clear Water Psychological Services PC v. American Transit Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Clear Water Psychological Services PC sought no-fault benefits from defendant American Transit Insurance Company. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for a 90-day stay, arguing that the assignor, Oshane Crooks, was acting as an employee at the time of the November 10, 2014 automobile accident, falling under Workers’ Compensation Board jurisdiction. A key issue was the admissibility of an uncertified police accident report (MV-104AN) which suggested the assignor was driving a taxi. The court ruled the uncertified report inadmissible under CPLR 4518 (c) for authentication reasons, despite the officer's personal observations. However, acknowledging the unresolved factual question of the assignor’s employment status and the Workers’ Compensation Board's primary jurisdiction, the court granted the defendant’s motion, staying the action for 90 days for a Workers’ Compensation Law applicability determination.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentStay of actionWorkers' CompensationPolice accident reportAdmissibility of evidenceCPLR 4518Vehicle and Traffic LawPrimary jurisdictionEmployment status
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stratus Services Group, Inc. v. Kash 'N Gold, Ltd.

An employment agency, Stratus Services Group, Inc., failed to conduct required background checks for temporary workers provided to Kash ’N Gold, Ltd. (KNG). Following a burglary at KNG's warehouse by three of these workers, KNG's insurer, American Home Assurance Company, compensated KNG for its losses. American Home, as subrogee, then sued Stratus for breach of contract. Initially, the Supreme Court found a breach but no proximate cause for the damages. However, an appellate court reversed this decision, determining that Stratus's breach was indeed a proximate cause of the damages, and awarded American Home judgment of $241,251.71 against Stratus.

Breach of contractProximate causationSubrogation claimEmployment agency liabilityFailure to conduct background checksWarehouse burglaryInsurance claimAppellate reversalContractual damagesNew York law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fickling v. New York State Department of Civil Service

This case involves a lawsuit brought by eight plaintiffs, primarily African-American and Hispanic former employees, against the New York State Department of Civil Service and Westchester County Department of Social Services. Plaintiffs alleged that their termination as Welfare Eligibility Examiners, due to failing competitive examinations, was unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Executive Law § 296. They claimed the examination had a racially disparate impact and lacked content validity, failing to serve the defendants' employment goal of fair competition. The court found that the examinations indeed had a disparate impact on African-Americans and Hispanics and that the defendants failed to provide credible evidence that the tests served a legitimate business goal. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActDisparate ImpactCivil Service ExaminationsContent ValidityJob AnalysisRacial DiscriminationHispanic DiscriminationWelfare Eligibility ExaminersNew York State Law
References
8
Case No. ADJ18189986
Regular
Aug 15, 2025

ESMERALDA SANCHEZ vs. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC; CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Esmeralda Sanchez claimed industrial injury to multiple body parts while employed as a janitor for Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC. The WCJ initially found the lien claimant, Spectrum Medical Group, failed to prove injury AOE/COE, awarding only $1,000 for a specific service date and excluding Dr. Nia's medical-legal report due to non-compliance with Labor Code § 4628. Both the defendant (Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC, Constitution State Services, Zurich American Insurance Company) and the lien claimant petitioned for reconsideration, citing errors in the WCJ's findings regarding admissible evidence and the need for further record development. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted both petitions, deferring a final decision to allow for further review of the merits and the entire record in light of applicable statutory and decisional law.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantAOE/COELabor Code § 4628Medical Legal ReportSubstantial EvidenceAdmissibilityIndustrial InjurySpectrum Medical Group
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance dispute over the duty to defend and indemnify. The plaintiff, Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc., sought a declaratory judgment against Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire, claiming primary insurer obligations in an underlying personal injury action. Stellar, insured by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company, had subcontracted duct work to Serge Duct Design, which was insured by Merchants. Serge was obligated to name Stellar as an additional insured. After a worker's injury and subsequent lawsuit, Merchants disclaimed coverage. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, ruling that Merchants is obligated as the primary insurer to defend Stellar from the time the second amended complaint was served, but not to indemnify Stellar. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an assessment of costs incurred by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company.

Insurance CoverageAdditional Insured StatusDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPrimary InsurerExcess InsurerSummary JudgmentContract LawSubcontract AgreementPersonal Injury Action
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1989

Marroquin v. American Trading Transportation Co.

Plaintiff Edmundo S. Marroquin was injured on November 8, 1985, while cleaning a cargo tank aboard the S.S. Washington Trader on the high seas. Marroquin was employed by third-party defendant Stevens Technical Services and the vessel was owned by defendant and third-party plaintiff American Trading Transportation Company. Marroquin initially sued American Trading for negligence and later added a cause of action for unseaworthiness. American Trading then instituted a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Stevens. Stevens moved for summary judgment, arguing that Marroquin's unseaworthiness claim was barred by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which would also dismiss American Trading's third-party action. The court denied Stevens' motion, finding that Marroquin was not covered by the LHWCA because he was the equivalent of a 'member of a crew' working on the high seas, not a land-based worker in port. Additionally, the LHWCA's geographical scope does not extend to injuries on the high seas during a long international voyage. Therefore, Marroquin could maintain his unseaworthiness claim, and American Trading could seek contribution or indemnification from Stevens.

Maritime LawUnseaworthiness ClaimLHWCA InapplicabilityHigh Seas InjurySeaman StatusThird-Party ActionSummary Judgment MotionVessel Cleaning CrewContribution and Indemnification
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 8,803 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational