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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a professional employer organization (PEO) may be a proper claimant under a labor and materials surety bond. Plaintiff Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a PEO, provided employee leasing services to Team Star Contractors, Inc. for a construction project, covering payroll, taxes, and insurance. When Team Star failed to pay, Tri-State filed a claim with the surety, Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., which was dismissed by the District Court. The New York Court of Appeals determined that a PEO's primary role as an administrative services provider and payroll financier creates a presumption that it does not provide labor for the purpose of a payment bond claim. The Court found that Tri-State failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating sufficient direction and control over the workers. Consequently, the Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. is not a proper claimant under the surety bond in the circumstances presented.

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law
References
16
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. Docket No. 2021-06-1257, State File No. 63576-2021
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2023

Richardson, Marzine v. Davidson Transit Organization

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed and remanded a case involving employee Marzine Richardson and employer Davidson Transit Organization. Richardson sought additional medical benefits for a left knee injury sustained while operating a bus, which she claimed aggravated a pre-existing degenerative condition. The employer denied the request, arguing the current need for treatment did not primarily stem from the work accident. The trial court ordered the employer to authorize a return visit to an authorized treating physician. The Appeals Board concluded that the employer could not unilaterally terminate medical benefits given that compensability of the accident was accepted and both physicians noted an aggravation of the pre-existing condition, thus upholding the trial court's order.

Workers' Compensation AppealsMedical BenefitsPre-existing Condition AggravationKnee InjuryBus Driver AccidentInterlocutory RequestTreating Physician AuthorizationBurden of ProofMedical Expert OpinionsCausation (Work-Related Injury)
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Civil Service Employees Association (C.S.E.A.) filed an Article 78 application to challenge actions taken by the City of White Plains and the Public Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.). C.S.E.A. sought to vacate a resolution where the City recognized a different employee organization (S.I.W.A.) for a portion of its employees, thereby altering C.S.E.A.'s bargaining unit, and to annul a P.E.R.B. order upholding the City's action. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing improper venue and that it was not a proper party. The court determined that Albany County was the correct venue and that the City was a proper party. The central issue was whether the City could unilaterally change bargaining unit composition without C.S.E.A.'s consent or a decertification petition. The court ultimately denied C.S.E.A.'s requested relief, agreeing with P.E.R.B. that public employers can recognize different employee organizations once an incumbent's unchallenged representation status period expires, in accordance with Civil Service Law sections 204 and 208.

Public Employment RelationsCollective Bargaining UnitsEmployee Organization RecognitionTaylor LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 CPLRBargaining Unit AlterationDecertification ProceedingsPublic Employer RightsVenue Disputes
References
1
Case No. 2022-08-0687
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2025

McCool, Martha v. Professional Care Services

Martha McCool, a psychiatric nurse practitioner for Professional Care Services, was injured in 2019 after being attacked by a patient, leading to multiple surgeries and PTSD. A 2023 settlement agreement allowed for future medical expenses. In 2024, her authorized treating physician, Dr. Dan Shell, recommended reconstructive surgery. The employer authorized the surgery but denied McCool's request for a second surgical opinion. The trial court initially ordered the employer to authorize the second opinion and awarded attorney's fees, but later denied the fees. The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the order compelling the employer to authorize and pay for a second opinion, interpreting the relevant statute to mean an employee is entitled to a second opinion when surgery is recommended, regardless of whether the treating physician ordered it. The Board also reversed the denial of attorney's fees, modifying the trial court's judgment to award McCool's attorney $10,150.00.

Second OpinionSurgical RecommendationAttorney's FeesMedical ExpensesWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationCompensable InjuryEmployer ObligationsEmployee RightsAppellate Review
References
15
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Professional Career Center, Inc.

The Professional Career Center, Inc., offering real estate education, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Commissioner of Labor's assessment for additional unemployment insurance contributions. The assessment stemmed from a determination that the Center's teachers were employees, not independent contractors. Despite a consulting agreement, the court found substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship. This was based on the Center's control over hiring, payment, quality, student recruitment, tuition, scheduling, and curriculum adherence. The court concluded that these factors supported the finding, affirming the decision against Professional Career Center, Inc.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorProfessional EducationReal Estate LicensingLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewContributionsAudit
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03356 [161 AD3d 855]
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2018

Matter of City of Long Beach v. Long Beach Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Local 287

The City of Long Beach (petitioner) appealed an order denying its petition to stay arbitration and granting the Long Beach Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 287's (respondent) cross-motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose after the City laid off firefighters and hired paramedics, setting the paramedics' terms of employment unilaterally. The union filed a grievance and demand for arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the City's petition and granted the union's cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that arbitration of the claim regarding firefighter layoffs violated public policy, citing Civil Service Law § 80 (1) which grants public employers nondelegable discretion over staffing. However, the court found no public policy precluding arbitration of claims related to the paramedics' terms of employment, as permitted by the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the order was modified to grant the City's petition to stay arbitration of the layoff claim and deny the union's cross-motion to compel arbitration of that claim, while affirming the rest of the order.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyFirefighter LayoffsParamedics EmploymentCivil Service LawManagement PrerogativeTaylor LawAppellate ReviewLabor Dispute
References
15
Case No. 2015-02-0061
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2016

Cotton, Alan v. HUMACare, Inc.

This Workers' Compensation case was filed by Mrs. Cotton, the surviving spouse of Alan Cotton, seeking death benefits after Mr. Cotton's fatal fall while working. The primary legal question addressed was whether HUMACare, Inc., a professional employer organization (PEO), qualified as an employer obligated to provide these benefits. The Court determined that HUMACare was indeed a co-employer of Mr. Cotton with Central USA. However, the Court also found that HUMACare bore no wage liability, as it only processed payroll from Central USA, thus absolving it of liability under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-211(a). Consequently, Mrs. Cotton's claim for widow benefits against HUMACare was denied and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Death Benefits ClaimProfessional Employer Organization (PEO)Co-Employment LiabilityWage Liability ApportionmentInsurance Carrier ResponsibilityEmployer DefinitionBurden of ProofCompensation HearingClaim DenialDismissal With Prejudice
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. South Bronx Development Organization

In March 1986, the plaintiff, an employee of the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) loaned to the South Bronx Development Organization (SBDO), sustained an injury. The plaintiff initially filed for Workers’ Compensation benefits, identifying HRA as the sole employer and subsequently received benefits. In March 1989, the plaintiff sued SBDO for negligence. SBDO denied negligence and asserted that Workers’ Compensation was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy, moving for a stay on the grounds that the Workers’ Compensation Board had primary jurisdiction to determine the plaintiff’s employment status. The court determined that factual questions regarding the plaintiff’s status as a 'special employee' of SBDO warranted deferring the issue to the Workers’ Compensation Board’s expertise. Furthermore, the court found that any delay by SBDO in moving for the stay did not cause operative prejudice to the plaintiff, thus not justifying a denial of the stay.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeNegligencePrimary JurisdictionStay of ActionEmployment StatusDeferralOperative PrejudiceAppellate ReviewJurisdiction
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 15,928 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