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. ADJ2423037
Regular
Nov 02, 2011

ELVA RAMIREZ vs. PERSONNEL PLUS, INC., WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Elva Ramirez and her employer, Personnel Plus, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior order dismissing a lien claimant's case. The lien claimant failed to appear at a scheduled hearing and also failed to file a timely objection to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The Board found the Petition for Reconsideration invalid for lack of verification and affirmed the dismissal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ OpinionReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 5902Lien ClaimantDismissal of LienFailure to AppearNotice of Intent to Dismiss LienCode of Civil Procedure Section 473
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arbitration between National Union Fire Insurance v. Personnel Plus, Inc.

Petitioner National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh sought judicial appointment of a neutral umpire in an arbitration dispute with respondents Personnel Plus, Inc. and Great Dane Management Services, Inc. concerning a workers' compensation liability insurance program. The respondents challenged the arbitration on grounds that Great Dane was a non-signatory, the chosen court lacked jurisdiction, and the underlying payment agreement was unenforceable under California law. The District Court, finding agency applied to Great Dane and upholding the forum-selection clause, granted National Union's petition, compelling arbitration for all claims and appointing Kevin Martin as the neutral umpire. The court also ruled that the enforceability of the payment agreement should be decided by the arbitral panel.

Arbitration AgreementUmpire AppointmentWorkers' Compensation LiabilityContractual DisputeForum Selection ClauseAgency RelationshipFederal Arbitration ActMcCarran-Ferguson ActArbitrabilityJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. ADJ7032650
Regular
Jul 21, 2011

ROBERTA CORRAL vs. PERSONNEL PLUS, INC., NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the case of *Roberta Corral v. Personnel Plus, Inc. and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration and removal. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning provided in the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. This decision affirms the prior ruling and dismisses the request for further review. The order was officially filed on July 21, 2011.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalAdministrative Law JudgePetitionDeniedPersonnel PlusNational Union Fire InsuranceRoberta CorralADJ7032650
References
0
Case No. 2019-02-0551
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2021

Maples, David ( McClain, Codi) v. Professional Personnel Services

This case involves Codi McClain, son of deceased employee David Maples, seeking death benefits from Professional Personnel Services and American Zurich. Mr. Maples died on December 16, 2017, after a work-related fall. Although funeral expenses were voluntarily paid by Professional Personnel, the claim for death benefits was later denied by American Zurich. McClain filed a Petition for Benefit Determination on November 18, 2019, almost two years after Mr. Maples's death. Professional Personnel Services filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that McClain failed to file within the one-year statute of limitations. The Court determined that McClain's reason for the late filing (difficulty hiring an attorney) was insufficient to toll the statute. Consequently, the Court granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing McClain's claim with prejudice.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDeath BenefitsTimeliness of FilingWorkers' Compensation ClaimMotion to DismissLegal ProcedureAppellate RightsCourt of Workers’ Compensation ClaimsPrejudice Dismissal
References
1
Case No. 2015-02-0217
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2016

Arciga, Nohemi v. AtWork Personnel Services

Nohemi Arciga, the employee, appealed the trial court's decision regarding her work-related right shoulder injury. The trial court had ordered the employer, At Work Personnel Services, to reinstate medical benefits but denied temporary disability benefits. Arciga argued that her lay testimony sufficiently proved medical causation. However, the Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's finding, stating that expert medical evidence was necessary to establish causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and lay testimony alone was insufficient, especially given the lack of a complete record on appeal. The case was subsequently remanded for further proceedings.

workers' compensationmedical causationtemporary disability benefitsexpedited hearingburden of proofexpert medical evidencelay testimonyshoulder injuryAppeals Boardmedical benefits
References
3
Case No. 2013-1461 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Performance Plus Med., P.C. v. Nationwide Ins.

This case involves an appeal by Performance Plus Medical, P.C., acting as an assignee, against Nationwide Ins. The plaintiff sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court had previously granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Term affirmed this order, ruling that the defendant's timely verification request tolled the insurer's time to pay or deny the claim, thus rendering the plaintiff's action premature due to a failure to respond to the request. Additionally, the court found that the defendant had successfully demonstrated a prima facie case for denying claims related to the first cause of action based on the workers' compensation fee schedule, which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentVerification requestInsurer's time to payPremature actionWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewCivil Court orderFirst-party benefitsAssigned claims
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00122 [146 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2017

Nunez v. Park Plus, Inc.

Emilio Nunez was injured at a parking lot owned by DeSoto Parking, LLC, while employed by Little Man Parking, LLC, when a mechanical lift caused the amputation of his toe. DeSoto moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, contending Nunez did not suffer a grave injury and was its special employee, and that there was a written indemnity agreement with Park Plus, Inc. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, agreeing Nunez did not suffer a grave injury, but found factual issues regarding DeSoto being an alter ego of Little Man Parking, LLC, and the existence of an indemnity agreement. It also concluded DeSoto failed to establish Nunez as a special employee.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAlter EgoIndemnification AgreementSpecial EmployeeToe AmputationPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewParking Lot Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beneficial Personnel Services of Texas, Inc. v. Rey

Ramon Rey, an oil field worker, sued Beneficial Personnel Services of Texas, Inc. (BPS) and Business Staffing, Inc. (BSI) after suffering a back injury. Rey's original employer, White Well Service, transitioned its employees to BPS/BSI, an employee leasing company, with promises of equivalent workers' compensation benefits. However, after Rey's injury, BPS/BSI significantly underpaid his benefits, delayed necessary surgery, and used an unlicensed insurance carrier. The jury found BPS committed fraud and that BPS and BSI operated as a single business enterprise, awarding Rey actual and exemplary damages, along with damages for mental anguish and damage to credit reputation. The trial court affirmed the judgment against both defendants, and this opinion upholds that decision, finding sufficient evidence for fraud, exemplary damages, and mental anguish, and that single business enterprise theory is a valid means of imposing tort liability.

Fraudulent InducementWorkers' Compensation PolicySingle Business Enterprise TheoryEmployee Leasing CompanyExemplary Damages AwardMental Anguish RecoveryCredit Reputation InjuryBreach of Employment ContractCorporate Veil PiercingUnlicensed Insurance Carrier
References
43
Case No. M2011-02746-COA-R3-CV / 1018991
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2012

Advantage Personnel Consultants, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Commerce

This case involves a dispute between Advantage Personnel Consultants, Inc. (insured) and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (insurer) regarding the proper classification of employees for workers' compensation insurance premiums. Advantage disputed Liberty's reclassification of its employees from 'manufacture of small tools' (3113) to 'machine shop' (3632), and later to 'construction or agricultural machinery mfg.' (3507) for employees working at TAG Manufacturing Company. Advantage contended the correct classification was 'boilermaking' (3620). The Department of Commerce and Insurance ruled in favor of the insurer (Liberty), classifying the work as 3507, which was affirmed by the Chancery Court for Davidson County and subsequently by the Court of Appeals, finding substantial and material evidence to support the Commissioner's decision.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ClassificationEmployee ClassificationPremium AuditAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMaterial EvidenceStatutory InterpretationCode Classification
References
7
Case No. 09-20-00185-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2020

in Re FW Services, Inc. D/B/A Pacesetter Personnel Services

FW Services, Inc., operating as Pacesetter Personnel Services, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to vacate an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction and abate a personal injury suit. The suit was filed by Pacesetter's employee, Anthony Snowden, who alleged negligence against Pacesetter and a co-employee, Joshua Dancurtis Franklin. Pacesetter argued that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy and required abatement until the workers' compensation proceedings before the DWC concluded. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court abused its discretion by not abating the negligence suit while the DWC had active jurisdiction over the workers' compensation claim. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted.

MandamusAbatementWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyPlea to JurisdictionPersonal InjuryScope of EmploymentTrial Court DiscretionAppellate ReviewOriginal Proceeding
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 927 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