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. SBR 0330038
Regular
2008-00-00

MARY E. LINDARS vs. KELLY SERVICES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

This case involved a worker injured in two separate incidents, one with Kelly Services and another with Caltrans. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered the original findings primarily regarding the applicant's average weekly earnings and permanent disability indemnity rate for the Kelly Services injury. The WCAB amended the decision to establish a higher rate for temporary disability based on consistent employment, but a lower rate for permanent disability, reflecting the applicant's voluntary unemployment between jobs. The WCAB affirmed the original finding of no apportionment for the injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLeft ShoulderWarehouse WorkerMaintenance WorkerAverage Weekly EarningsEarning CapacityTemporary Disability Indemnity
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03952
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2022

Kelly v. State of New York

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Court of Claims' dismissal of claimant James F. Kelly's action against the State of New York. Kelly, a part-time police officer, challenged his ineligibility to take a full-time officer exam due to exceeding an age limit imposed by Civil Service Law § 58. The court held that federal constitutional claims under 42 USC § 1983 cannot be asserted against the State in the Court of Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, Kelly's Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim was dismissed as Civil Service Law § 58 falls within the ADEA's law enforcement exception, allowing age-based hiring for police officers. Finally, the claim based on Civil Service Law § 54 was also dismissed, as that statute permits reasonable age requirements for civil service positions.

Age DiscriminationCivil Service LawPolice OfficerCourt of ClaimsAppellate ReviewSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Constitutional ClaimsADEA ExceptionLaw Enforcement ExemptionFailure to State a Cause of Action
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ7263446
Regular
Mar 24, 2014

ANGELLA AREBAMEN vs. KELLY SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Kelly Services' petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant was terminated by Kelly Services, via its client Neutrogena's policy, for late reporting of her industrial injury. The Board found that terminating an employee for reporting an injury, even if violating a client's policy, constitutes unlawful discrimination. Consequently, Kelly Services was affirmed to have violated section 132a and was subject to the imposed $10,000 penalty.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationindustrial injurypermanent disabilityPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderadministrative penaltyspecial employergeneral employer
References
0
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. CAF 10-00834
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2011

Y., BRIDGET KATHLEEN, MTR. OF

This case is an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County, which found four children (Bridget Y., Kelly Y., Colleen Y., and Michaela Y.) to be neglected and placed them into the custody of the Chautauqua County Department of Social Services (DSS). The parents, Kenneth M.Y. and Rita S., appealed, challenging the Family Court's subject matter jurisdiction, asserting New Mexico as the children's home state with a pending custody proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction, citing the children's imminent risk of harm due to severe abuse and neglect allegations and New Mexico's insufficient protective measures. The appeal was dismissed as moot for Colleen Y. and Kelly Y., who attained the age of 18 during the appeal's pendency.

Child NeglectChild AbuseTemporary Emergency JurisdictionUCCJEAFamily LawAppellate ReviewJurisdictional ConflictParental RightsHome StateInter-State Custody
References
0
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. 2020 NY Slip Op 00935 [180 AD3d 1331]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2020

Matter of Emma D. (Kelly v. D.)

This case involves two appeals concerning Emma D. In Appeal No. 1, the Ontario County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated a neglect proceeding against the mother, Kelly V.(D.). The mother's motion to change venue to Monroe County was denied due to her refusal to provide her actual residence. In Appeal No. 2, the grandmother, Margarita D., commenced a custody proceeding against the mother. Custody was granted to the grandmother, supported by findings of extraordinary circumstances including the mother's neglect, unstable living situation, mental health issues, and failure to address the child's special needs. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed both orders, including the supervised visitation arrangement between the mother and grandmother.

Child NeglectCustody DisputeFamily Court ActVenue ChangeExtraordinary CircumstancesSupervised VisitationParental RightsChild WelfareAppellate ReviewParental Fitness
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
Showing 1-10 of 8,817 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