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

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

Deluca v. Arch Insurance Group

This case involves an appeal from an order and judgment concerning an arbitration award. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, confirmed an arbitration award dated December 12, 2011, in favor of the petitioner, and denied a cross-petition by Arch Insurance Group and Gallagher Bassett Services to vacate the award. Arch Insurance Group and Gallagher Bassett Services appealed this decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order dated June 5, 2012, as the right of direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the petitioner's service of the demand for arbitration proper and noting that insufficiencies did not warrant vacatur. The arbitrator's award was found to have evidentiary support and a rational basis, and was not duplicative of any worker’s compensation benefits. One bill of costs was awarded to the petitioner.

Arbitration ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewInsurance ArbitrationUninsured MotoristUnderinsured MotoristEvidentiary SupportArbitrary and Capricious StandardSufficiency of Arbitration Demand
References
9
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. ADJ478277 (LAO 0857795)
Regular
Jul 23, 2015

LUIS OSUNA vs. COLOR GRAPHICS, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

Defendant Gallagher Bassett Services sought reconsideration of a Compromise and Release (C&R) approval, alleging an error in permanent disability advances due to oversight of attorney fees. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed more than 20 days after the C&R was issued, and the defendant failed to provide proof of actual receipt after asserting defective service. Even if considered on its merits, the Board would have denied the petition, as the calculation error was a unilateral mistake by the defendant and not grounds for setting aside the C&R.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeUntimely PetitionDefective ServiceJurisdictionPermanent Disability AdvancesUnilateral MistakeService of Process
References
11
Case No. ADJ526691, ADJ3636578
Regular
Mar 28, 2013

Jitka Van Dyne vs. United Airlines, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for removal. The WCAB adopted the Judge's report, stating removal is an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. The applicant failed to object to the declaration of readiness and has an adequate remedy at trial for evidentiary disputes. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceDeclaration of ReadinessAdmissibility of EvidenceDue DiligenceAneurysmIndustrial InjuryLay Opinion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Case No. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
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. ADJ7671717
Regular
Sep 06, 2012

CARLOS RODRIGUEZ vs. MICHAELS STORES, INC.; ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior order. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and omissions regarding prior shoulder injuries. The WCJ determined the applicant failed to meet their burden of proving the injury was industrial, citing a lack of credible medical evidence supporting the claim.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgecredibilityindustrial injurymedical evidenceprior injuriesshoulder injurymotor vehicle accidentsevasive testimony
References
2
Case No. ADJ10261356
Regular
Jun 03, 2017

MICHELE GONSALVES vs. LIVE NATION, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by Applicant Michele Gonsalves against Live Nation and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order as defined by law. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, which the Board adopted, supported both decisions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 7,278 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