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. ADJ2923882 (VNO 0550303)
Regular
Jan 29, 2014

MARCIAL MARTINEZ vs. MONARCH dba PES PAYROLL, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, FOAMEX, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case involves applicant Marcial Martinez, injured while working for Foamex, who was leased by HR Business Staffing and paid by Monarch/PES. The Appeals Board affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding that Monarch's policy WC 573-39-25, due to its "alternate employer endorsement" and contract with Air Ground Manpower, provided workers' compensation coverage. The Board determined that Monarch's role in processing payroll, coupled with the written agreement specifying insurance provision, satisfied the endorsement's requirements. Despite Monarch's arguments regarding its limited payroll role and allegations of fraud, the policy provisions and parties' conduct established coverage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderArbitrator's DecisionInsurance CoverageMonarch ConsultingPES PayrollAmerican Home AssuranceHR Business StaffingAir Ground Manpower
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Incorporated Village of Nissequogue v. Suffolk County Department of Civil Service

The Village of Nissequogue initiated a special proceeding against the Suffolk County Department of Civil Service after the department refused to certify the payroll for police officers Dennis McHugh and Roger Leigh. The officers, appointed in 1982 and 1984, had served commendably despite not being appointed from an official eligibility list. The department, aware of the irregular appointments since 1986, did not act until 1989 when it blocked payroll certification, prompting this legal challenge. The court examined the applicability of a 1984 amendment to Civil Service Law § 100 (5), which presumes proper appointment after three years, even for initially irregular appointments. The court ruled that the department could not refuse payroll certification, denied the department's motion to dismiss, and granted the officers' cross-petition for payment, citing the department's inaction despite prior knowledge.

Civil Service LawPayroll CertificationPolice OfficersIllegal AppointmentConstitutional LawSpecial ProceedingSuffolk CountyMerit SystemProbationary PeriodStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zeluck v. Board of Education

The case involves a motion by the Attorney-General to dismiss a petition filed by certain teachers. The teachers sought to enjoin the Superintendent of Schools from implementing payroll deductions mandated by Civil Service Law section 210, also known as the Taylor Law, for their alleged participation in a strike. The petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional, infringing upon rights to free association, speech, and equal protection, and that its payroll deduction provisions constituted a bill of attainder and violated due process. The court, citing precedents, rejected the arguments regarding free association, speech, and equal protection. It also found the due process procedures for payroll deductions sufficient, concluding the law was not a bill of attainder. Therefore, the motion to dismiss was granted.

Taylor LawCivil Service LawPublic Employee StrikesPayroll DeductionsDue ProcessFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechEqual ProtectionConstitutionality of StatuteMotion to Dismiss
References
5
Case No. ADJ3923408
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

Andrea Seyfried vs. Compass Films, Inc., National Surety Company/Fireman's Fund, Power Payroll, Inc., California Insurance Guarantee Association for Legion Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury while employed by both Power Payroll (general employer) and Compass Films (special employer). Power Payroll was insured by Legion Insurance, whose obligations are now handled by CIGA. Compass Films was insured by Fireman's Fund. The Board rescinded the prior order finding Power Payroll as the sole employer and returned the case for proceedings to determine the respective liabilities of CIGA and Fireman's Fund. CIGA is not liable if Fireman's Fund policy constitutes "other insurance" available to the applicant.

General employerSpecial employerDual employmentPayroll servicesFilm industryInsurance Guarantee AssociationInsurer insolvencySpecial employer controlPayroll companyProduction manager
References
22
Case No. MON 0331606
Regular
Aug 08, 2007

DEAN HARVEY vs. PES PAYROLL

This case involves a request for additional attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code § 5801 following a successful appeal by the applicant. The Appeals Board awarded applicant's attorney $3,500 in fees and $96.98 in costs, finding the requested hours for drafting the response excessive and disallowing paralegal fees. The Board determined the case was of average complexity and set the hourly rate at $250 for a certified specialist.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealAppeals BoardSupplemental AwardReasonable FeesHourly RateCertified SpecialistAppellate Complexity
References
3
Case No. ADJ2923882
Regular
Aug 28, 2013

MARCIAL MARTINEZ vs. MONARCH dba PES PAYROLL, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a June 16, 2013 decision. This action was taken due to statutory time constraints and an initial review indicating a need for further study of the factual and legal issues. The WCAB requires all future communications in this case to be submitted in writing directly to the Commissioners' office, not to any district office or via e-filing. The purpose of this reconsideration is to allow for a complete understanding of the record and to ensure a just decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMARCIAL MARTINEZMONARCH dba PES PAYROLLAMERICAN HOME ASSURANCEADJ2923882VNO 0550303OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issues
References
0
Case No. ADJ3919401 (POM 0295843)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

LUIS MUNIZ vs. XCESS PAYROLL SERVICES

This order dismisses Xcess Payroll Services' Petition for Reconsideration because it was not verified, violating Labor Code section 5902. The Board also indicated that even if verified, the petition would have been denied on the merits. The dismissal is based on procedural grounds and the lack of evidence in the record to support the petitioner's claims, particularly regarding a "Verizon issue." The petitioner failed to properly identify themselves in the heading, contributing to the dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902WCJ Report and RecommendationOptimum PharmacyVerizon issueLien claimantDismissedAdjudicationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
1
Case No. ADJ6888509 ADJ6888503
Regular
Jun 26, 2014

REYNA OLIVAR vs. EZ PAYROLL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, GALLAGHER BASSETT ORANGE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, concerning Reyna Olivar and defendants EZ Payroll Staffing Solutions and Gallagher Bassett, involved a petition for reconsideration. The petitioner has formally withdrawn their petition for reconsideration of the October 18, 2013 decision. Consequently, the Board has dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnApplicantDefendantsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and OrderLong Beach District OfficeOctober 18 2013June 26 2014
References
0
Case No. ADJ10233708
Regular
Jan 17, 2020

ARTURO CHAVEZ vs. PURPOSE DRIVEN PERSONNEL, HARTFORD, COUNTRYWIDE PAYROLL, NORTH BAY DISTRIBUTION, COMPWEST, H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, TRAVELERS

This case concerns the employment status of applicant Arturo Chavez and the resulting workers' compensation liability. The WCAB rescinded the prior findings of fact regarding employment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The primary dispute revolves around whether Purpose Driven Personnel was applicant's employer, given its reliance on Countrywide for payroll and workers' compensation insurance. The Board emphasized the need for further development of evidence, particularly regarding employment agreements between potential employers, to clarify the employer-employee relationship and subsequent insurance coverage.

Special employerGeneral employerDual employmentJoint and several liabilityLabor Code section 3602(d)PEOEmployee leasingService agreementWorkers' compensation insuranceFindings of Fact
References
11
Case No. ADJ3605789 (GOL 0101314) ADJ2387995 (GOL 0101316) ADJ460036 (GOL 0101615)
Regular
Dec 12, 2011

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

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant claiming injuries while employed as a zookeeper for Neverland Valley Ranch and other entities. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior findings, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found that the trial judge erred by excluding evidence related to employment agreements under the parol evidence rule, which is relevant to determining employer status. Further development of the record is required to properly address the applicant's employment relationships with the defendant entities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJorge VivancoNeverland Valley RanchMichael JacksonMJJ ProductionsTravelers IndemnityUnited Staffing AssociatesAmerican Home Assurance CompanyMonarch ConsultingPES Payroll
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 151 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