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. ADJ10651475 ADJ10762532
Regular
Aug 30, 2018

ROSENDA RODRIGUEZ vs. FAIRWAY STAFFING, SOLVIS STAFFING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, FRESH GRILL FOODS, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether Solvis Staffing was a concurrent employer. The initial finding identified Fairway Staffing as the general employer and Fresh Grill Foods as the special employer for applicant's injuries. However, evidence suggests Solvis, as a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), may have also been an employer, creating a potential overlap in coverage. The Board found the record underdeveloped regarding Solvis' PEO role and payroll responsibility, thus remanding the case to the trial level for further investigation.

PEOProfessional Employer Organizationconcurrent employergeneral employerspecial employerJoint Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWCJReport and Recommendationrescinded
References
1
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. 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. ADJ10454739
Regular
Jan 07, 2020

Antonio Santelices vs. Baron HR, LLC, Bison Workforce Solutions, Inc., State Compensation Insurance Fund, Public Investment Corp., Insurance Company of the West

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the applicant alleged injury while employed by Baron HR, LLC, who sent him to work for Pacific Coast Warehouse. The arbitrator found Baron HR to be the general employer and Pacific Coast Warehouse the special employer, and importantly, that Bison Workforce Solutions (BWS) was the employer for insurance purposes, making its insurer, SCIF, liable. SCIF petitions for reconsideration, arguing BWS and Bison Data Systems are distinct and BWS was insured by Hartford, not SCIF, and challenging the arbitrator's evidentiary findings. The Board rescinded the arbitrator's decision, remanding for further proceedings to clarify the employment and insurance coverage relationships, especially concerning BWS's role as a Professional Employer Organization and compliance with PEO insurance regulations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAntonio SantelicesBaron HR LLCBison Workforce SolutionsState Compensation Insurance Fundgeneral employerspecial employeremployee leasingProfessional Employer OrganizationPEO
References
0
Case No. ADJ11968759
Regular
Apr 13, 2023

JESUS ORTEGA GONZALEZ vs. MAJOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., BALJINDER S. GILL, PEOPLEASE LLC, NATIONAL INTERSTATE RICHFIELD.

This case involves an applicant injured while employed by both Major Transportation Services and Peoplease, a Professional Employer Organization (PEO). Peoplease sought reconsideration of a finding that they jointly employed the applicant on the date of injury, arguing payroll was not processed through them. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that a co-employment relationship existed. The WCJ found that despite Peoplease's argument about payroll timing, evidence showed Peoplease benefitted from the applicant's work and their actions were inconsistent with strict contract adherence, akin to precedent in Gulam v. Patel. Ultimately, Peoplease's arguments regarding payroll timing were deemed coverage issues subject to arbitration and not grounds to deny the finding of co-employment.

Professional Employer OrganizationPEOdual employmentgeneral employerspecial employerco-employmentclient policyLabor Code section 3602(d)presumption of employmentsubstantial evidence
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04527 [196 AD3d 988]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2021

Matter of Cardona v. DRG Constr. LLC

In 2018, claimant Alex Adonias Pinto Cardona was injured during construction work, leading to a workers' compensation claim. A dispute arose regarding his employment status with DRG Construction LLC, a subcontractor, and Avitus Inc., a professional employer organization (PEO) providing payroll and HR services to DRG. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found Avitus to be a proper employer and American Zurich Insurance Company, Avitus's insurer, to be the responsible carrier for benefits. Avitus and American Zurich appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship between DRG and the claimant and that Avitus and American Zurich failed to demonstrate that the claimant was not covered by the insurance policy.

Employer-Employee RelationshipProfessional Employer Organization (PEO)Insurance CoverageSubcontractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction InjuryPayroll ServicesHuman Resources OutsourcingAdministrative ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
6
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. 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 10,780 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