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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03231 [238 AD3d 1444]
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

Matter of Fonseca v. Platinum Carpentry Inc.

Claimant, a carpenter, sustained work-related injuries while employed by Platinum Carpentry Inc. Platinum had a contract with Cornerstone Underwriters, LLC, a professional employer organization (PEO), to provide workers' compensation coverage through United Wisconsin Insurance Co. (UWIC). UWIC denied coverage, arguing the claimant was not listed on Platinum's payroll and not covered under the policy, as Platinum failed to provide required hiring paperwork for its '1099 employees' like the claimant. The Workers' Compensation Board modified a prior decision, finding the claimant was not a leased/worksite employee of Cornerstone and thus not covered by UWIC's policy, placing the Uninsured Employers Fund back on notice and remitting for penalties against Platinum. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant was not a leased/worksite employee and therefore not covered under the relevant workers' compensation policy.

Professional Employer OrganizationWorkers' Compensation CoverageDual Employment1099 ClaimantUninsured Employers FundPayroll RecordsContractual AgreementInsurance Policy ExclusionAppellate ReviewCredibility Determination
References
4
Case No. ADJ15495483; ADJ15494417
Regular
Sep 30, 2025

GLADYS SERRANO vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The cost petitioner, Platinum Copy, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's 'Joint Findings, Order, and Opinion on Decision' that denied their petitions for medical-legal costs and sanctions. The WCJ had granted defendant's motion to quash subpoenas and found Platinum Copy failed to prove their entitlement to recover costs due to unreasonableness and lack of necessity of the services. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, concluding that Platinum Copy failed to establish the reasonableness and necessity of the incurred services, including improper service of subpoenas, thus denying the Petition for Reconsideration.

WCABPlatinum CopyPetition for ReconsiderationMotion to QuashMedical Legal CostsSubpoenasContested ClaimLabor Code Section 5909Colamonico v. Secure TransportationAD Rule 9982
References
5
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. 06 Civ. 2279
Regular Panel Decision

Dessert Beauty, Inc. v. Platinum Funding Corp.

This case involves a dispute stemming from a factoring agreement between Dessert Beauty, Inc. (DBI), a Barbados corporation manufacturing cosmetics, and Platinum Funding Corp., a New Jersey financing company. DBI initiated the action to recover funds it alleges were wrongfully withheld by Platinum, while Platinum counterclaimed against DBI and filed a third-party complaint against Neil and Randi Shinder and Dessert Beauty Holdings, Inc. (DBH) as guarantors. The central issues revolve around the enforceability of an 'adjustment fee' provision and an attorney's fees clause in the factoring agreement. The court denied DBI’s motion for partial summary judgment on conversion, money had and received, and unjust enrichment claims. It granted Platinum's motion for partial summary judgment on the money had and received and unjust enrichment claims but denied its motions regarding the adjustment fee and attorney’s fees, pending resolution of DBI’s fraudulent inducement claim.

Factoring AgreementSummary JudgmentContract DisputeFraudulent InducementConversion ClaimMoney Had and ReceivedUnjust EnrichmentAttorney's Fees ProvisionNew Jersey LawChoice of Law
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Hyatt Corp.

The plaintiff initiated an action to recover damages for personal injuries after slipping and falling on a wet door mat at the Grand Hyatt Hotel. She sued the hotel owners and two contractors, Harvard Maintenance, Inc., and Platinum Maintenance Services Corp. The defendants Harvard and Platinum moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment. The appellate court found that Harvard and Platinum established, prima facie, that they did not assume a comprehensive and exclusive maintenance obligation and did not launch a force or instrumentality of harm, thus owing no duty of care to the plaintiff.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractor LiabilityDuty of CareSnow RemovalSlip and FallMaintenance AgreementAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
14
Case No. 653709/2013
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2016

Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC v. SDI, Inc.

This case involves a dispute arising from an April 28, 2011 transaction where Plaintiffs (Sellers) sold shares in Project Eagle to Defendant SDI, Inc. (Purchaser). SDI claims Sellers breached representations and warranties in the Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA), while Sellers contend SDI breached the Escrow Agreement by submitting an invalid claim notice and retaining escrowed funds. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs also sought dismissal on spoliation grounds. The court partially granted and partially denied Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, dismissing SDI's claims regarding Taxes and temporary workers, but denying dismissal for Financial Statements and Suppliers/Customers. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the Sellers' Representative's claim for breach of the Escrow Agreement. Finally, Plaintiffs' motion for spoliation sanctions was denied due to a lack of demonstrated control over non-party entities.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentEscrow AgreementSpoliation of EvidenceStock Purchase AgreementCorporate AcquisitionIndemnification ClaimDue DiligenceFinancial StatementsSuppliers and Customers
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matthius v. Platinum Estates, Inc.

JAC Construction Corp. appealed an order that granted indemnification to Grymes Hill Estates, Inc., John Culotta, Robert Ricca, and Platinum Estates, Inc., for costs and attorney's fees in a personal injury action. JAC argued that a subsequent agreement with a merger clause superseded a prior indemnification agreement. The court found the January 17th agreement to be incomplete and ambiguous, allowing the admission of the prior indemnification agreement as extrinsic evidence without contradicting the later contract. The indemnification agreement clarified insurance coverage and indemnification obligations. The court also noted that the merger clause did not extinguish the indemnification agreement because the two contracts dealt with different subject matter. Furthermore, JAC demonstrated its intent to be bound by the indemnification agreement by obtaining the required insurance. Therefore, the referee's report, finding the respondents entitled to indemnification, was properly confirmed.

IndemnificationMerger ClauseParol Evidence RuleContract InterpretationAmbiguityExtrinsic EvidenceGeneral ContractorOwnerPersonal InjuriesAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp.

Lorenzo Chambers filed an employment discrimination suit against TRM Copy Centers Corporation under Title VII, alleging wrongful termination. TRM countered with claims of performance issues and a violation of their anti-moonlighting policy. The court acknowledged weaknesses in TRM's justifications but found no direct or indirect evidence of discrimination, such as statistical data or prejudiced remarks. The judge determined that the employer's inadequate explanation for dismissal does not, by itself, constitute affirmative evidence of discrimination. Consequently, TRM's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of Chambers' claims.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentRacial DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationWrongful TerminationAfter-Acquired EvidenceMoonlighting PolicyBurden of ProofDisparate Treatment
References
17
Case No. ADJ3235679
Regular
May 10, 2011

JENNIFER MILLER vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the defendant violated Labor Code section 132a. The defendant argued the finding of discrimination was speculative and lacked sufficient evidence. The Board is granting reconsideration to thoroughly review the case, especially given the absence of the applicant's response to the petition. An order was issued requiring the applicant to submit a copy of her answer for the Board's review.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationreconsiderationFindings and Awardapplicantdefendantworkers' compensation judgeWCJReport and Recommendationdue process
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 1997

Lurzer GMBH v. American Showcase, Inc.

Lurzer GMBH sued American Showcase, Inc. and The One Club For Art & Copy, Inc. for various claims, including trademark infringement, false advertising, and breach of contract. American had previously initiated arbitration regarding a breach of contract claim. Defendants moved to stay Lurzer's lawsuit pending arbitration, while Lurzer cross-moved to stay or dismiss the arbitration. The Court denied the defendants' motion to stay except for specific breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and good faith/fair dealing claims, finding the arbitration clause in the 1987 Agreement valid and broadly applicable to contract-related disputes, but not trademark ownership disputes. The Court also denied Lurzer's motion to stay or dismiss American's arbitration claim regarding advertising page limits, confirming the arbitration clause's applicability and the nature of the claim as non-past due moneys.

Arbitration AgreementTrademark DisputeContract InterpretationBreach of Fiduciary DutyCovenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingStay of ProceedingsFraudulent InducementFederal Arbitration ActScope of ArbitrationAdvertising Contract
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 153 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