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. 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. 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

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. No. 28
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

The Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Service v. Kerry Delaney

This case involves an appeal by Mental Hygiene Legal Service on behalf of a 16-year-old child with developmental disabilities who was confined to an emergency room for several weeks due to a lack of suitable residential placement or in-home services. Petitioner sought the child's immediate discharge and a declaration that the state's failure to provide community habilitation and respite services was arbitrary and violated her statutory rights under CPLR articles 70 and 78, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lower courts dismissed the petition, finding the matter moot but applying the exception. The Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the appeal on grounds of mootness, citing intervening material alterations to service programs, specifically the Crisis Services for Individuals with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities (CSIDD) program. A dissenting opinion argued for the application of the mootness exception and the viability of petitioner's claims under state and federal law.

Developmental DisabilitiesMedicaid ServicesEmergency Room ConfinementMootness ExceptionIntegration MandateMental Hygiene LawAmericans with Disabilities ActCrisis ServicesResidential PlacementNew York Court of Appeals
References
33
Case No. A.D. No. 69820
Regular Panel Decision

Rochester Telephone Corp. v. Public Service Commission

The Public Service Commission (PSC) reduced Rochester Telephone Corporation's (RTC) utility rates by imputing a 2% royalty due to improper cost-shifting and uncompensated transfers of RTC’s intangible assets to its subsidiaries. Concurrently, PSC created a rebuttable presumption of a 2% royalty for other regulated utilities. RTC challenged these actions in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Appellate Division confirmed. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, finding both the royalty and the rebuttable presumption to be rational means for establishing just and reasonable utility rates. Additionally, the Court dismissed constitutional claims, ruling the Commerce Clause claim justiciable but the takings issue non-justiciable due to specific case circumstances and a Joint Stipulation.

Utility RegulationRate-making PolicyIntangible Asset ValuationRoyalty ImputationCost ShiftingPublic Service Commission AuthorityAppellate ReviewConstitutional ClaimsCommerce ClauseTakings Clause
References
13
Case No. ADJ8151109 ADJ8652587
Regular
Jun 04, 2019

GIANCARLO BERMUDEZ vs. TECHTRANS, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, SUSSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES

This case involves lien claimant Scripte Corporation's petition for reconsideration after its lien was dismissed for failing to appear at a lien conference. Scripte claimed it did not receive notice of the conference, but the WCAB upheld the dismissal, finding the presumption of proper mail service was not rebutted by a bare declaration of non-receipt. Commissioner Gaffney dissented, arguing the office manager's declaration provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption and warrant a new hearing. The majority denied reconsideration based on the WCJ's reasoning, adopting it as their own.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ConferenceNotice of HearingGood CauseRebuttable PresumptionProof of ServiceCompromise and ReleaseWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1988

Levitt v. Civil Service Commission

The City of New York appealed a Supreme Court judgment that affirmed the Civil Service Commission's decision to reject the reclassification of the deckhand position from the competitive to the noncompetitive civil service class. Petitioners argued that the Commission applied an overly strict standard, acted inconsistently with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the NY Constitution, based its decision solely on a presumption despite expert opinions, and failed to adequately state its reasoning. The Appellate Division found that the Commission properly used the term "compelling" to reflect the constitutional preference for competitive examinations and that its decision, while brief, allowed for judicial review. Citing the public safety roles of deckhands, similar to police and firefighters, the court concluded that competitive examinations are feasible and petitioners failed to demonstrate an impediment to compliance with job-relatedness requirements.

Civil Service LawJob ReclassificationCompetitive ExaminationNoncompetitive ClassPublic SafetyDeckhand PositionAppellate ReviewCivil Rights Act Title VIINew York ConstitutionArbitrary Determination
References
5
Case No. ADJ6622890
Regular
Mar 10, 2014

GIOVANNA MUNOZ vs. MARY ADAMS COLLINS, ALLSTATE, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Western Imaging's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The Board found that Western Imaging's claim of non-receipt of the Order Dismissing Lien Claim was insufficient to overcome the presumption of service created by the defendant's proof of service and the ordinary course of mail. Even if Western Imaging's declaration were considered, the Board found credible evidence that they did, in fact, receive the order. Due to the untimeliness, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceRebuttable PresumptionOrdinary Course of MailUntimelyJurisdictionLien ClaimWCABAdministrative Law JudgeWestern Imaging
References
9
Case No. ADJ1631052 (ANA 0405611)
Regular
Oct 29, 2019

LUISA ISABEL RODRIGUEZ vs. KELLY SERVICES

This case concerns Kelly Services' challenge to lien claims filed by Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center and Technical Surgery Support. Kelly Services argued that the lien claimants' declarations, signed by Patrick Christoff, were untimely and that Mr. Christoff lacked personal knowledge of the services billed. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's findings, ruling that the timeliness issue was waived as it was not raised at trial. The Board found Mr. Christoff competent to sign the declarations, relying on his extensive experience reviewing medical reports and billing, and the fact that the underlying medical reports were also signed under penalty of perjury.

Labor Code section 4903.8(d)declarant competencypersonal knowledgelien claimantsKelly ServicesESISComprehensive Outpatient Surgery CenterTechnical Surgery SupportFindings of FactReconsideration
References
14
Case No. ADJ11368246
Regular
Mar 03, 2020

Marta Ubillus vs. One Stop Employment Services, LLC/Vensure Employer Services, Security National Insurance Company, State National Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding the valuation of interpreter services. The WCAB adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) report, which found that while the defendant did not present rebuttal evidence, the ALJ had substantial evidence to make a determination. The ALJ determined a market rate of $114.97 per hour but noted the lien claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the duration of services on most dates, preventing application of the market rate. Consequently, the statutory rate was applied for those services.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedLien ClaimantInterpreter ServicesMarket RateStatutory RateWCJ ReportSubstantial EvidenceFindings and Award
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 8,307 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