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. LBO 0355505
Regular
Feb 26, 2008

REBECCA BETANCOURT vs. CHECKMATE STAFFING SERVICES, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND, J.C. PENNEY, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE c/o AIG CLAIM SERVICES

This case involves an applicant injured while working for Checkmate Staffing Services, a general employer, and J.C. Penney, Inc., a special employer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a prior decision, notably reversing the administrative law judge's (ALJ) assessment of penalties against Checkmate and remanding the issue of Checkmate's insurance coverage to the trial level. The WCAB affirmed joint and several liability for benefits against Checkmate, J.C. Penney, American Home Assurance, and the Uninsured Employers Fund (UEF), ordering American Home Assurance to administer benefits while reserving jurisdiction to determine ultimate liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint and Several LiabilitySpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerUninsured Employers FundLabor Code Section 3722Certificate of Liability InsuranceDue ProcessDual Employment Relationship
References
3
Case No. AHM 0135423
Regular
Mar 10, 2008

REYNA VENEGAS vs. DIVERSIFIED STAFFING SOLUTIONS, PARA

This case involves two petitions for reconsideration: one from the applicant, Reyna Venegas, and one from the defendant, Diversified Staffing Solutions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has denied the applicant's petition and dismissed the defendant's petition. The WCAB also corrected a clerical error in the underlying decision's heading, substituting "Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" for "Division of Workers' Compensation."

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeJudicial AuthorityOriginal JurisdictionDelegation of Judicial PowersTrialInitial DeterminationReconsiderationApplicant
References
0
Case No. 15
Regular Panel Decision

Beltre v. Lititz Healthcare Staffing Solutions LLC

Plaintiffs R. Anthony Beltre and Sean Jones initiated a class action against Lititz Healthcare Staffing Solutions LLC, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), and John Doe defendants, alleging overtime and 'spread of hours' violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Defendant Lititz moved to dismiss the complaint, contending it was not the plaintiffs' employer or joint employer, a crucial element for claims under FLSA and NYLL. The Court, employing the 'economic reality' test for employer status, reviewed affidavits and arguments from both sides. Ultimately, the Court denied Lititz's motion, concluding that the complaint sufficiently alleged an employment relationship and that evidence, including Lititz's payroll responsibilities and contractual designation as 'sole employer,' made its employer status plausible.

Employment LawFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawOvertime ClaimsJoint Employer StatusMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Economic Reality TestStaffing Agency LiabilityX-ray Technicians
References
19
Case No. ADJ6888509 ADJ6888503
Regular
Jun 26, 2014

REYNA OLIVAR vs. EZ PAYROLL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, GALLAGHER BASSETT ORANGE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, concerning Reyna Olivar and defendants EZ Payroll Staffing Solutions and Gallagher Bassett, involved a petition for reconsideration. The petitioner has formally withdrawn their petition for reconsideration of the October 18, 2013 decision. Consequently, the Board has dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnApplicantDefendantsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and OrderLong Beach District OfficeOctober 18 2013June 26 2014
References
0
Case No. ADJ3045197 (LAO 0818234)
Regular
Oct 07, 2011

DIOMEDES QUINONEZ vs. CHECKMATE STAFFING, INC., BUCKEYE CLAIMS, J.C. PENNEY, INC., AIG CLAIM SERVICES, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEF) sought reconsideration of a prior award against Checkmate Staffing, arguing an automatic bankruptcy stay invalidated it. The Board denied the UEF's petition, finding it lacked jurisdiction to rescind an award over seven years old. California Labor Code Section 5804 strictly limits rescission or alteration of awards to five years post-injury. The Board emphasized that rescinding the award would contravene the legislative intent behind the UEF to protect workers injured by illegally uninsured employers.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardBankruptcy Automatic StayLabor Code Section 5804Jurisdictional LimitationRescind AwardContinuing JurisdictionLegally Uninsured EmployerDate of Injury
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02849 [204 AD3d 1348]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

Matter of Cruz (Strikeforce Staffing LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Strikeforce Staffing LLC liable for unemployment insurance contributions, classifying Nelson Ruiz Cruz and other workers as employees. Strikeforce, a staffing agency, connected Cruz with a bakery client, who managed his employment and daily tasks. Strikeforce's involvement largely consisted of initial screening and payroll processing based on client approvals. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's determination. The court ruled that there was not substantial evidence to support an employer-employee relationship, as Strikeforce did not exercise sufficient control over the means or results of the workers' services. The decision was remitted back to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipStaffing AgencyIndependent ContractorControl TestSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate DivisionWorkers' ClassificationRemuneration Liability
References
9
Case No. ADJ9456228 (MF), ADJ9341963
Regular
Oct 09, 2018

MARIA COLCHADO vs. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING HOLDING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SELECT STAFFING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, TRI-STATE STAFFING, CIGA administered by SEDGWICK for LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine Toll Global Forwarding's employer status. While the ALJ found Toll Global was not a special employer, the Board reversed this, finding Toll Global was indeed the special employer. This determination was based on Toll Global's direct supervision and instruction of the applicant. The staffing agencies, Select Staffing and Tri-State Staffing, were designated as the general employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGASpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerToll Global ForwardingSelect StaffingTri-State StaffingACE American InsuranceJoint Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
11
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00044 [212 AD3d 419]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2023

Sakthivel v. Industrious Staffing Co., LLC

Plaintiff Suba Sakthivel appealed an order dismissing her complaint against Industrious Staffing Company, LLC. Sakthivel, proceeding pro se, alleged unlawful termination based on complaints about safety violations following a coworker assault, claiming protection under Labor Law §§ 215 and 740. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that Sakthivel, as a staff accountant, was not covered by Labor Law § 200, which applies to construction workers. Her Labor Law § 740 claim failed because a coworker assault does not meet the criteria for a "substantial and specific danger to public health or safety." Additionally, her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was dismissed for not alleging conduct "utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

Employment LawRetaliation ClaimWrongful TerminationSafe WorkplaceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAppellate ReviewCPLR 3211 DismissalLabor Law ViolationsCoworker AssaultStaff Accountant
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Copper v. Cavalry Staffing, LLC

Derek Copper and Leslie Minto filed a collective action against Cavalry Staffing, Tracy Hester, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime, minimum-wage violations, and inaccurate wage statements. Enterprise's motion to dismiss based on not being an employer was denied, with the court finding sufficient pleading for joint employer status. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss was denied for overtime and wage statement claims, but granted for minimum-wage claims. The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a collective action, finding adequate factual showing from named plaintiffs and additional affidavits. The parties were directed to agree on notice procedures for opt-in plaintiffs.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawUnpaid OvertimeMinimum WageWage StatementsJoint EmployerCollective ActionConditional CertificationMotion to DismissWage Theft Prevention Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2011

Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions, Inc. v. Essex Insurance

Plaintiff Avrio Group Surveillance Solutions commenced a declaratory judgment action against Defendant Essex Insurance Company, seeking an order to defend and indemnify Avrio in a personal injury action. Essex filed a motion to dismiss, which was converted to a motion for summary judgment. The court addressed two main exclusions: the Completed Operations Exclusion and the Contractual Liability Exclusion. The court found a potentiality of coverage under the Completed Operations Exclusion due to ambiguities in the term "intended use" and unresolved factual issues regarding the completion of work, denying summary judgment on this ground. However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Essex regarding the Contractual Liability Exclusion, as the subcontract did not qualify as an "insured contract" under the policy's specific definition in effect at the time of the incident, and Avrio was presumed to have agreed to these terms. The case will proceed to an evidentiary hearing on the Completed Operations Exclusion.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContractual Liability ExclusionCompleted Operations ExclusionInsurance Policy InterpretationChoice of LawMaryland Contract LawFederal Civil ProcedureDuty to Defend
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 487 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