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. ADJ10651475 ADJ10762532
Regular
Aug 30, 2018

ROSENDA RODRIGUEZ vs. FAIRWAY STAFFING, SOLVIS STAFFING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, FRESH GRILL FOODS, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether Solvis Staffing was a concurrent employer. The initial finding identified Fairway Staffing as the general employer and Fresh Grill Foods as the special employer for applicant's injuries. However, evidence suggests Solvis, as a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), may have also been an employer, creating a potential overlap in coverage. The Board found the record underdeveloped regarding Solvis' PEO role and payroll responsibility, thus remanding the case to the trial level for further investigation.

PEOProfessional Employer Organizationconcurrent employergeneral employerspecial employerJoint Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWCJReport and Recommendationrescinded
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper Square Hotel, LLC v. Assured Source National, LLC

Petitioner Cooper Square Hotel, LLC sought to discharge a mechanic's lien filed by respondent Assured Source National, LLC against its property. The petitioner argued that the lien should be discharged due to waivers of mechanic's liens executed by the respondent and Angel Construction Group, LLC, and because the respondent, a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), is not entitled to assert a mechanic's lien under Lien Law § 3. The court acknowledged that factual issues regarding the waivers and payments would warrant discovery. However, the court ultimately determined that the respondent, as a PEO, failed to overcome the presumption that it did not provide labor, citing *Tri-State Empl. Servs. v Mountbatten Sur. Co.* as precedent. Consequently, the court granted the petition and ordered the discharge of the mechanic's lien.

Mechanic's LienProfessional Employer OrganizationPEOLabor LawLien LawWaiver of LienConstruction ManagementPayroll FinancingCo-employerNew York State Law
References
3
Case No. CV-23-2290
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Henry Fiallos Fonseca

Claimant Henry Fiallos Fonseca sustained work-related injuries while employed by Platinum Carpentry Inc., which had a contract with Cornerstone Underwriters, LLC, a professional employer organization (PEO), for workers' compensation coverage through United Wisconsin Insurance Co. (UWIC). UWIC denied coverage, arguing Fonseca was not on Platinum's payroll and thus not covered by the PEO agreement. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found Fonseca to be a dual employee, making UWIC the proper carrier. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this, ruling that Fonseca was not a leased/worksite employee because Platinum failed to provide the required hiring paperwork to Cornerstone. Consequently, Fonseca remained an employee of Platinum alone, leading the Board to place the Uninsured Employers Fund back on notice for penalties against Platinum. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationProfessional Employer OrganizationCo-employmentLeased EmployeeInsurance Coverage DenialUninsured Employers FundAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationLabor LawPayroll Omission
References
4
Case No. ADJ6930467, ADJ550500 (MON 0358506)
Regular
Jun 16, 2014

IVAN MIRANDA vs. PAFCO/POWER PEO, ORISKA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by defense firm Hitzke & Associates regarding sanctions imposed jointly and severally against them and their client, Oriska Insurance. The sanctions stemmed from Oriska's bad faith failure to pay a Compromise and Release agreement after being ordered to do so. The Appeals Board dismissed Hitzke & Associates' petition because they failed to serve it on their own client, Oriska Insurance. This failure violated WCAB Rule 10450(f) and demonstrated an adverse interest by the firm against its client concerning the sanctioned liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint and Several LiabilitySanctionsBad Faith ConductCompromise and Release AgreementLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5WCJDefense Counsel
References
0
Case No. ADJ1092183 (LBO 0352297) ADJ2573196 (LBO 0352957)
Regular
Feb 13, 2018

PEDRO DELRIO vs. THE POWER PEO, RAINFOREST FLORA, INC., REINSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, CLAIMQUEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the disallowance of a lien claimant's claim. The claimant based their claim on an alleged settlement agreement, but the document lacked proper authentication and contained significant discrepancies, including an incorrect case number. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding the claimant failed to meet their burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. This decision affirmed that admitted evidence must still be evaluated for weight and sufficiency.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLABOR CODE SECTION 5705PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCESUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCELIEN CLAIMANTPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONWCJ REPORTAUTHENTICATION OF EVIDENCEPROTESTED EXHIBITSMINUTES OF HEARING AND SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
References
3
Case No. ADJ14429786
Regular
Jun 02, 2025

JOSE ZACARIAS GONZALEZ vs. WEST CENTRAL, LLC; THE HARTFORD; WEST CENTRAL PRODUCE SERVICES, INC.; INVO PEO INC.; III LCF WCP SERVICES INC.; UNITED WISCONSIN INS. CO. administered by NEXT LEVEL ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal, concurring with the WCJ's analysis. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor did they show that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. The decision highlighted that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. Therefore, based on the record, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportAdjudication NumberVan Nuys District Office
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2006

Jara v. SMJ Environmental, Inc.

Claimant, a leased laborer for SMJ Environmental, Inc., was injured in December 2000. SMJ had initially contracted with PEO Services, Inc. for laborers and workers' compensation coverage, but later secured a policy from Frontier Insurance Company, reinsured by Clarendon National Insurance. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that SMJ was claimant's sole employer and Clarendon was liable for benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings. SMJ and Clarendon appealed, but the court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence to support both the employer-employee relationship and the insurance coverage for the claimant.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipLeased LaborersInsurance CoverageSubstantial EvidenceAsbestos RemovalAppeals BoardCarrier LiabilityEmployment ContractWorkers' Compensation Law § 54
References
8
Case No. ADJ11968759
Regular
Apr 13, 2023

JESUS ORTEGA GONZALEZ vs. MAJOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., BALJINDER S. GILL, PEOPLEASE LLC, NATIONAL INTERSTATE RICHFIELD.

This case involves an applicant injured while employed by both Major Transportation Services and Peoplease, a Professional Employer Organization (PEO). Peoplease sought reconsideration of a finding that they jointly employed the applicant on the date of injury, arguing payroll was not processed through them. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that a co-employment relationship existed. The WCJ found that despite Peoplease's argument about payroll timing, evidence showed Peoplease benefitted from the applicant's work and their actions were inconsistent with strict contract adherence, akin to precedent in Gulam v. Patel. Ultimately, Peoplease's arguments regarding payroll timing were deemed coverage issues subject to arbitration and not grounds to deny the finding of co-employment.

Professional Employer OrganizationPEOdual employmentgeneral employerspecial employerco-employmentclient policyLabor Code section 3602(d)presumption of employmentsubstantial evidence
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04527 [196 AD3d 988]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2021

Matter of Cardona v. DRG Constr. LLC

In 2018, claimant Alex Adonias Pinto Cardona was injured during construction work, leading to a workers' compensation claim. A dispute arose regarding his employment status with DRG Construction LLC, a subcontractor, and Avitus Inc., a professional employer organization (PEO) providing payroll and HR services to DRG. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found Avitus to be a proper employer and American Zurich Insurance Company, Avitus's insurer, to be the responsible carrier for benefits. Avitus and American Zurich appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship between DRG and the claimant and that Avitus and American Zurich failed to demonstrate that the claimant was not covered by the insurance policy.

Employer-Employee RelationshipProfessional Employer Organization (PEO)Insurance CoverageSubcontractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction InjuryPayroll ServicesHuman Resources OutsourcingAdministrative ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 13 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