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

Morse v. Weingarten

This case involves a securities fraud class action where plaintiffs, shareholders of First Capital Holdings Corp., alleged that defendant Michael Milken violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and committed common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs claimed Milken, through his 'Daisy Chain' scheme, caused First Capital to invest heavily in junk bonds, leading to its collapse and misleading statements about its financial health. Milken moved to dismiss all claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity, and to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f). The court granted Milken's motion to dismiss all claims, finding that Morse failed to adequately allege a primary violation of Section 10(b) due to a lack of 'in connection with' and causation, insufficient knowledge for aider and abettor liability, insufficient control for control person liability, and inadequate pleading of conspiracy. The common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were also dismissed for similar reasons, and the court granted the motion to strike references to Milken's criminal conviction and income as immaterial.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Aiding and AbettingControl Person LiabilityConspiracyCommon Law FraudNegligent Misrepresentation
References
26
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1960

Battista v. Potofsky

The defendant, an unincorporated association, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which denied its motion to dismiss a complaint for insufficiency, alleging fraud. The appellate court reversed the order, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the allegations were insufficient to demonstrate that the fraud complained of was authorized or ratified by the members of the union, which is an unincorporated association. Leave was granted for the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint.

FraudUnincorporated AssociationDismissalInsufficiency of PleadingAuthorizationRatificationCivil PracticeAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
Case No. M2007-02787-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2009

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Friendship Home Health Agency, LLC

This case involves an appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County concerning a dispute over workers' compensation insurance premiums. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company sued Friendship Home Health Agency, LLC for unpaid balances after audits revealed underreported payroll. Friendship Home Health Agency, LLC appealed the trial court's judgment, citing the denial of a continuance, the rejection of an accord and satisfaction defense, and a waived statute of frauds argument. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance and no evidence to preponderate against the finding of no accord and satisfaction. The court also deemed the statute of frauds defense waived due to improper raising.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance PremiumsAudit DisputeContinuance MotionAccord and SatisfactionStatute of FraudsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewContract LawPayroll Underestimation
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ironforge. Com v. Paychex, Inc.

The case involves three plaintiffs, Ironforge.com, Handyman Home Solutions, and Road Service, Inc., suing Paychex, Inc. for alleged misconduct related to payroll and human resources services. Initially filed in California, the action was transferred to the Western District of New York. Plaintiffs claimed breach of contract, fraud, various torts, and violations of federal and California statutes, asserting Paychex charged undisclosed fees, misused funds for interest, and made unauthorized withdrawals. The court granted in part Paychex's motion to dismiss, discarding claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, EFTA violations, and all California statutory claims, while denying the motion to strike class allegations. The breach of contract claim was allowed to proceed to discovery.

Breach of ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationUnjust EnrichmentConversionEFTA ViolationRule 12(b)(6) MotionMotion to StrikeChoice of LawERISA PreemptionClass Action Allegations
References
104
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,464 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