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. 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

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Rehab Plus Inc.

Keith Henry sued Rehab Plus, Inc., for injuries sustained while wearing a back support belt manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment for Rehab Plus on the breach of express warranty and unfair and deceptive trade practices claims, finding a lack of evidence for an express warranty and no misleading conduct. However, the court denied summary judgment on the negligence, strict products liability, and breach of implied warranty claims. It determined that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the defendant's duty to warn foreseeable users about latent dangers associated with the back support belt and whether the product was fit for its ordinary purpose, thereby precluding summary dismissal of those claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityBreach of Implied WarrantySummary JudgmentFailure to WarnProduct DefectBack Support BeltIndustrial SafetyDuty to Warn
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2008

Mayo v. Personnel Review Board of the Health & Hospitals Corp.

The case involves a petitioner, an HHC supervisor, whose employment was terminated after an altercation. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially recommended dismissal of charges related to assault and unbecoming conduct. However, the Personnel Review Board (PRB) upheld the termination based on an uncharged ground: the petitioner's failure to immediately report the incident. The Supreme Court annulled the PRB's decision, citing a due process violation due to reliance on uncharged misconduct, deemed the termination penalty disproportionate, and directed reinstatement. This appellate court affirmed the finding of a due process violation but modified the Supreme Court's order, remanding the matter to the PRB for further proceedings consistent with the lack of sufficient notice. The court also clarified that the Supreme Court prematurely addressed the application of HHC personnel rule 7.5.6, stating that the PRB should interpret this rule first.

Due Process ViolationUncharged MisconductAdministrative HearingEmployment TerminationReinstatementRemandSufficiency of NoticeAssault ChargesFailure to ReportPersonnel Rules
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. City Civil Service Commission

The New York City Personnel Director challenged the City Civil Service Commission's decision to grant veterans' preference credits to police officers who performed a few hours of active duty during a 1970 postal strike. The Court of Appeals found that the Personnel Director had standing to sue, rejecting the argument of an intra-agency dispute due to the Director's policy-making and enforcement authority over civil service laws. On the merits, the Court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that veterans' credits are intended for individuals whose full-time military service significantly disrupted their civilian lives, a condition not met by the police officers' brief service. The court clarified that mere literal fulfillment of "time of war" and "member of the armed forces" definitions is insufficient without demonstrable sacrifice. Therefore, the orders awarding the preference credits were annulled, emphasizing the restrictive interpretation of such preferences in competitive civil service systems.

Veterans' preference creditsCivil Service LawStanding to sueArticle 78 proceedingMunicipal civil service commissionPersonnel DirectorJudicial review of administrative decisionsArmed Forces reservistsActive dutyConstitutional interpretation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2021

Matter of Gaylord v. Buffalo Transp., Inc.

Claimant Kevin Gaylord, a bus driver for Buffalo Transportation, Inc., sustained multiple injuries after being struck by a car. Buffalo Transportation had a personnel leasing agreement with Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. (SPLI), a professional employer organization, which procured a workers' compensation policy from State National Insurance Company, Inc. State National controverted Gaylord's claim, arguing he was not a covered worksite employee. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that SPLI was statutorily obligated to provide coverage and State National was the proper carrier. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, concluding that SPLI was a co-employer and the State National policy covered Gaylord, as it did not clearly exclude him.

Workers' CompensationProfessional Employer OrganizationPEOCo-employmentInsurance Coverage DisputeStatutory ObligationAppellate ReviewCarrier LiabilityLease AgreementBus Driver Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 716 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