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. SAC 0300070
Regular
Aug 28, 2007

HAROLD RANDALL vs. REMEDY INTELLIGENT STAFFING, C.I.G.A., INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE, MCKESSON CORPORATION, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award because the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding the applicant was not a special employee of McKesson Corporation. The Board found that McKesson exercised sufficient control and supervision over the applicant, who was provided by a temporary staffing agency, to establish a special employment relationship. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and decision on all outstanding issues.

Special employmentDual employmentTemporary employment agencyControl and directionBorrowing employerGeneral employerIndustrial injuryPermanent disabilityQualified medical evaluatorReconsideration
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Clumber Transportation Corp.

Clumber Transportation Corporation and Poppy Cab Corporation appealed decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board found both corporations to be employers, subject to workers’ compensation insurance requirements, because they leased taxicab medallions and, in Clumber's case, had more than one corporate officer prior to January 1, 1987. The corporations challenged the statutory employment relationship and the Board Chairman's authority to delegate penalty imposition. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2, finding that medallion leases created a statutory employment relationship. It also upheld the Board's finding regarding Clumber's multiple officers and the Chairman's delegation authority. However, the court modified the penalty against Poppy Cab Corporation, reducing it from $7,200 to $6,000, while affirming the decision against Clumber.

Workers Compensation LawTaxicab MedallionEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory EmploymentCorporate OfficersInsurance RequirementDelegation of AuthorityAdministrative PenaltiesAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
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. ADJ8928936
Regular
May 06, 2015

DAVID ELEIDJIAN (Deceased), JULIE THOMAN as guardian ad litem for ELIZABETH ELEIDJIAN vs. HR COMP STAFFING LLC, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, ACTION PERSONNEL AGENCY INC., HENKEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The WCAB found that the order joining Henkel Corporation as a party was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the WCAB determined that the applicant was not denied procedural due process, as they had an opportunity to be heard on the joinder issue. Henkel Corporation was joined as a potential joint employer for the full adjudication of the case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalInterlocutory OrderProcedural Due ProcessJoinder of PartyJoint EmployerUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSubstantive RightsAdjudication
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2009

Johnson v. UniFirst Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Derrick Corporation, sustained injuries when his uniform, rented from UniFirst Corporation, caught fire. UniFirst, a defendant in the main personal injury action, filed a third-party complaint against Derrick for contractual indemnification. Derrick moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing that its contract with UniFirst had expired at the time of the accident, thus barring indemnification under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied Derrick's motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and Derrick's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. The appellate court found UniFirst failed to provide statutory notice for automatic contract renewal under General Obligations Law § 5-903 (2).

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawAutomatic Renewal ProvisionThird-Party ActionPersonal InjuryUniform FireEmployer LiabilityStatutory Notice
References
6
Case No. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Tredegar Corp.

Exxon Mobil Corporation sued Tredegar Corporation alleging breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). Exxon claimed Tredegar failed to indemnify it for a settlement in an underlying personal injury action and failed to cooperate in Exxon's defense as per the APA. Tredegar filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I, finding the indemnification provisions of the APA ambiguous regarding whether the liability was 'assumed' or 'retained'. However, the court largely denied the motion to dismiss Count II, concluding that Exxon plausibly alleged a breach of Tredegar's duty to cooperate and provide reasonable access to employees, with a partial grant for the records access claim under Section 12.7 of the APA.

asset purchase agreementindemnification clausebreach of contractduty to cooperatemotion to dismisscontract ambiguitycorporate acquisitionpre-closing occurrencespost-closing eventslitigation defense
References
14
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1987

Constantine v. Sperry Corp.

James Constantine, a passenger in a van leased by his employer Sperry Corporation, was injured when the van, operated by a fellow employee Oligario, struck a curb. The plaintiffs appealed a judgment denying their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross motion, dismissing the complaint. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that Constantine's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, making his sole remedy the Workers' Compensation Law. Consequently, both the employer and co-worker were immune from suit, and no liability could be imputed to the van owner, Gelco Corporation. The derivative claim by Constantine's wife was also dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationEmployer ImmunityCo-employee ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDerivative ClaimVan AccidentNassau CountyNew York
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cintas Corp. v. Unite Here

Cintas Corporation and its affiliates sued UNITE HERE, Change To Win, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and several individuals, alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Lanham Act, and Ohio state law. Cintas accused the defendants of orchestrating a "Corporate Campaign" to pressure them into a card-check/neutrality agreement, involving disparaging websites and communications targeting Cintas's customers and investors. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that Cintas failed to establish predicate acts for the RICO claims (attempted extortion under the Hobbs Act and Ohio law). Additionally, the Lanham Act claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting were dismissed due to lack of likelihood of confusion, commercial use for profit, or bad faith intent to profit. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Ohio state-law claims, leading to the dismissal of the entire action.

RICOLanham ActTrademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionTrademark DilutionCybersquattingHobbs ActLabor UnionsCorporate CampaignFreedom of Speech
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 2,816 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