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

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. ADJ4449218
Regular
Mar 04, 2010

LUIS ALVARADO vs. STAFFING SERVICES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here is a summary of the case in a maximum of four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, which found jurisdiction over a dispute between an injured worker's applicant and defendant Staffing Services, Inc. The ALJ correctly determined that there was no express agreement between Staffing Services and the lien claimant, Beverly Hills Pharmacy, fixing payment amounts, thus Labor Code section 5304 did not divest the Board of jurisdiction. The Board also found that removal was not appropriate for this final determination. Procedural arguments regarding a denied continuance due to the defense attorney's illness were also rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalLien ClaimantExpress AgreementLabor Code Section 5304JurisdictionStaffing Services Inc.State Compensation Insurance FundBeverly Hills Pharmacy
References
2
Case No. ADJ3605789 (GOL 0101314), ADJ2387995 (GOL 0101316), ADJ460036 (GOL 0101315)
Regular
Jul 26, 2012

JORGE VIVANCO vs. NEVERLAND VALLEY RANCH, ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON, MJJ PRODUCTIONS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY, UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, MONARCH CONSULTING dba PES PAYROLL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the original findings regarding employment for both United Staffing Associates and Monarch Consulting. The Board found that United Staffing Associates was never the applicant's employer, rescinding findings that they were the employer on October 8, 2007, and for a cumulative trauma period. Regarding Monarch Consulting, the Board found they were not the employer on October 2, 2006, but were the general employer from March 2006 through August 30, 2007, with specific exclusions, reversing the prior ruling on the specific injury date. The case was returned for further proceedings consistent with these revised findings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJorge VivancoNeverland Valley RanchEstate of Michael JacksonMJJ ProductionsTravelers IndemnityUnited Staffing AssociatesAmerican Home Assurance CompanyMonarch ConsultingPES Payroll
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rumsey v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Plaintiffs, employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services and military reservists, challenged Departmental Directive # 2212, which allowed the rescheduling of their regular days off to coincide with military drills. They claimed this violated their rights under federal and state military laws and the Equal Protection Clause, arguing it discriminated against them by not requiring similar rescheduling for other types of leave. The defendants asserted the directive was necessary to address staffing shortages and prevent abuse of military leave, noting that pass days were routinely rescheduled for various other reasons. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the directive did not constitute discrimination, as it did not require 'special accommodations' for reservists beyond what was afforded to other employees, consistent with the precedent set in Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.

Military LeaveEmployment RightsWork ScheduleDiscrimination ClaimSummary Judgment MotionCollective BargainingSeniority RightsDepartmental DirectiveFederal LawState Law
References
10
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. 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. ADJ4303823
Regular
Dec 11, 2008

GLORIA BUSTOS vs. BAYSIDE SERVICES/STAFFING, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION through their servicing facility CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., for LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of retroactive VRMA, finding that merely listing vocational rehabilitation as an issue in applications did not establish a good faith demand for services. However, the Board rescinded the denial of attorney's fees under LC 5814.5, remanding the issue for further determination in light of the en banc decision in *Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services*. This ruling clarifies that LC 5814.5 applies to delays occurring after January 1, 2003, regardless of the injury date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceQualified Injured WorkerLabor Code section 5814.5Date of InjuryDate of AwardApplication for Adjudication of ClaimGood Faith DemandRehabilitation UnitUnreasonable Delay
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01454
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2017

Sokolovic v. Throgs Neck Operating Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning hold harmless and indemnity agreements. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Vision Healthcare Services' motion to enforce a hold harmless agreement and Throgs Neck Operating Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim against Vision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed these orders. The court held that the plaintiff was obligated to hold Vision harmless from Throgs Neck's indemnification claim due to a hold harmless agreement executed during settlement. It further clarified that a nurse provided by Vision to Throgs Neck remained Vision's general employee, thereby triggering Vision's contractual indemnity obligation, despite being considered a special employee of Throgs Neck for the purpose of Throgs Neck's liability to the plaintiff.

hold harmless agreementcontractual indemnityspecial employeegeneral employeestaffing agreementsettlement agreementsummary judgmentnegligenceagency liabilityappellate review
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
Showing 1-10 of 7,295 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