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. WCK 0068998
Regular
Jan 22, 2008

LINDA FONTENOT vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES INC., PINNACLE RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded sanctions imposed against Barrett Business Services Inc. (represented by Pinnacle Risk Management Services) and its adjustor, Chamber Medical Collections, Inc. (CMC), for failing to appear at a hearing. The WCAB found that CMC provided a reasonable excuse for its non-appearance, supported by a doctor's note, and deemed the sanctions disproportionate. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other sanctions and the underlying lien claim.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanction OrdersLien ClaimantFailure to AppearWCJPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessReasonable ExcuseDoctor's Statement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DAR & Associates, Inc. v. Uniforce Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs, consisting of DAR & Associates, Inc., its principals, and D.A.R. Temps, Inc., initiated a lawsuit against Uniforee Services, Inc. The core of the action sought a declaratory judgment that restrictive covenants and a liquidated damages provision in their contracts were unenforceable under New York law, alongside a breach of contract claim. In addressing cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the court found Uniforee possessed legitimate business interests warranting the protection of the restrictive covenants, deeming them reasonable in duration and geographic scope. Furthermore, the court upheld the enforceability of the liquidated damages clause, concluding that actual damages were difficult to ascertain at the time of contract and the agreed-upon sum was reasonable. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion was granted, effectively validating the contractual provisions at issue.

Restrictive CovenantsNon-compete ClauseNon-solicitation ClauseLiquidated DamagesBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementLicensing AgreementUnfair Competition
References
60
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08737
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2018

NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. Recco Home Care Servs., Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Albany County. Plaintiff NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust, a self-insured trust providing workers' compensation coverage, sued defendant Recco Home Care Services, Inc. for unpaid adjustments after the defendant terminated its membership. Following an amendment to the complaint adding individual trustees as plaintiffs, the defendant asserted counterclaims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence against these trustees, which the Supreme Court dismissed as time-barred. The defendant also sought to amend its answer to include a counterclaim under General Business Law, which was denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the counterclaims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty and in denying the cross-motion to amend for the General Business Law claim. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reversing parts of the dismissal and denial, and affirmed the order as modified.

Workers' Compensation CoverageSelf-Insurance TrustFraud AllegationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyGeneral Business LawStatute of LimitationsAmended PleadingsCounterclaimsAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
2
Case No. ADJ13262420
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

JOSE MORALES vs. KENNETH C. RAY, COMPASS DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted defendant Kenneth C. Ray's petition for reconsideration of an Amended Findings and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 15, 2025. The original F&A had found that applicant Jose Morales was employed by Kenneth C. Ray and sustained an industrial injury but was not employed by Barrett Business Services, Inc. The Board rescinded the F&A and substituted a new F&A, affirming Morales's employment by Kenneth C. Ray and not by BBSI. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings under a new WCJ to determine issues regarding employment with Compass Development and Construction Inc., the participation of the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund, and the specific body parts injured.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings and Awardarising out of and in the course of employmentemploymentliabilitythird-party administratorsubstantial evidencecausationdeposition testimony
References
18
Case No. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a professional employer organization (PEO) may be a proper claimant under a labor and materials surety bond. Plaintiff Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a PEO, provided employee leasing services to Team Star Contractors, Inc. for a construction project, covering payroll, taxes, and insurance. When Team Star failed to pay, Tri-State filed a claim with the surety, Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., which was dismissed by the District Court. The New York Court of Appeals determined that a PEO's primary role as an administrative services provider and payroll financier creates a presumption that it does not provide labor for the purpose of a payment bond claim. The Court found that Tri-State failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating sufficient direction and control over the workers. Consequently, the Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. is not a proper claimant under the surety bond in the circumstances presented.

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law
References
16
Case No. ADJ10250093
Regular
Dec 22, 2016

DENIS PADILLA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns an applicant, Denis Padilla, versus their employer, Barrett Business Services, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has denied Padilla's Petition for Reconsideration in this matter. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in their decision. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration has been formally denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOpinion on DecisionPermit Self-InsuredADJ10250093Pomona District OfficeDenying PetitionWCJ ReportAdopted Opinion
References
0
Case No. ADJ7762176
Regular
Dec 16, 2011

MARTIN ESPARZA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

In *Esparza v. Barrett Business Services, Inc.*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a September 28, 2011 Findings and Award. The WCAB granted reconsideration to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is deemed necessary for a complete understanding of the record and to issue a just decision. All future communications must be directed to the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesjust and reasoned decisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersFrank M. BrassAlponso J. Moresi
References
0
Case No. ADJ948816 (SFO 0499481) ADJ1273445 (SFO 0512742)
Regular
Nov 06, 2012

EDWIN SUAREZ vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant Barrett Business Services, Inc. regarding a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted this petition. The WCAB determined that reconsideration is necessary to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented. This action will allow the Board to gain a complete understanding of the record and issue a just decision, potentially involving further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationPermissibly Self-InsuredBarrett Business ServicesEdwin SuarezAugust 16 2012Statutory time constraintsFactual and legal issues
References
0
Case No. ADJ8032021
Regular
Jan 28, 2014

JUAN RUIZ vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for Barrett Business Services, Inc. The Board affirmed the applicant's weekly earnings at $440.00, but amended the temporary disability period to six weeks following the injury, based on medical evidence. Consequently, the applicant's attorney's fee was reduced to align with the adjusted temporary disability award. The Board also upheld findings regarding the Medical Provider Network and the non-liability for out-of-network treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityEarningsMedical Provider NetworkCo-employerQualified Medical EvaluationModified WorkPermanent and StationaryAttorney's Fees
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15,291 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