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

Incorporated Village of Nissequogue v. Suffolk County Department of Civil Service

The Village of Nissequogue initiated a special proceeding against the Suffolk County Department of Civil Service after the department refused to certify the payroll for police officers Dennis McHugh and Roger Leigh. The officers, appointed in 1982 and 1984, had served commendably despite not being appointed from an official eligibility list. The department, aware of the irregular appointments since 1986, did not act until 1989 when it blocked payroll certification, prompting this legal challenge. The court examined the applicability of a 1984 amendment to Civil Service Law § 100 (5), which presumes proper appointment after three years, even for initially irregular appointments. The court ruled that the department could not refuse payroll certification, denied the department's motion to dismiss, and granted the officers' cross-petition for payment, citing the department's inaction despite prior knowledge.

Civil Service LawPayroll CertificationPolice OfficersIllegal AppointmentConstitutional LawSpecial ProceedingSuffolk CountyMerit SystemProbationary PeriodStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zeluck v. Board of Education

The case involves a motion by the Attorney-General to dismiss a petition filed by certain teachers. The teachers sought to enjoin the Superintendent of Schools from implementing payroll deductions mandated by Civil Service Law section 210, also known as the Taylor Law, for their alleged participation in a strike. The petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional, infringing upon rights to free association, speech, and equal protection, and that its payroll deduction provisions constituted a bill of attainder and violated due process. The court, citing precedents, rejected the arguments regarding free association, speech, and equal protection. It also found the due process procedures for payroll deductions sufficient, concluding the law was not a bill of attainder. Therefore, the motion to dismiss was granted.

Taylor LawCivil Service LawPublic Employee StrikesPayroll DeductionsDue ProcessFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechEqual ProtectionConstitutionality of StatuteMotion to Dismiss
References
5
Case No. ADJ3923408
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

Andrea Seyfried vs. Compass Films, Inc., National Surety Company/Fireman's Fund, Power Payroll, Inc., California Insurance Guarantee Association for Legion Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury while employed by both Power Payroll (general employer) and Compass Films (special employer). Power Payroll was insured by Legion Insurance, whose obligations are now handled by CIGA. Compass Films was insured by Fireman's Fund. The Board rescinded the prior order finding Power Payroll as the sole employer and returned the case for proceedings to determine the respective liabilities of CIGA and Fireman's Fund. CIGA is not liable if Fireman's Fund policy constitutes "other insurance" available to the applicant.

General employerSpecial employerDual employmentPayroll servicesFilm industryInsurance Guarantee AssociationInsurer insolvencySpecial employer controlPayroll companyProduction manager
References
22
Case No. ADJ2212288
Regular
Mar 09, 2011

GUILLERMO GOMEZ vs. BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves lien claimants seeking reconsideration of an order dismissing their lien claims. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petitions for reconsideration because the case file lacked proof of service for the notice of the lien trial. The Board has ordered the defendant to provide proof of service within 15 days. This action is intended to allow for a proper review of the facts and law regarding the dismissed liens.

Lien Claim DismissalPetition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceMinutes of HearingLien TrialWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJBrinderson ConstructorsTravelers InsuranceWestside Health-Chiropractic
References
0
Case No. ADJ2923882 (VNO 0550303)
Regular
Jan 29, 2014

MARCIAL MARTINEZ vs. MONARCH dba PES PAYROLL, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, FOAMEX, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case involves applicant Marcial Martinez, injured while working for Foamex, who was leased by HR Business Staffing and paid by Monarch/PES. The Appeals Board affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding that Monarch's policy WC 573-39-25, due to its "alternate employer endorsement" and contract with Air Ground Manpower, provided workers' compensation coverage. The Board determined that Monarch's role in processing payroll, coupled with the written agreement specifying insurance provision, satisfied the endorsement's requirements. Despite Monarch's arguments regarding its limited payroll role and allegations of fraud, the policy provisions and parties' conduct established coverage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderArbitrator's DecisionInsurance CoverageMonarch ConsultingPES PayrollAmerican Home AssuranceHR Business StaffingAir Ground Manpower
References
4
Case No. 192-1049-352
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp. (In Re Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp.)

Howard P. Goodman, a former Chief Financial Officer for Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp., Inc., filed an adversary proceeding seeking severance pay and damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and to recover under his Proof of Claim No. 833. The Debtors-Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and expunge the claim. The court found that Goodman was terminated on September 27, 1991, which was more than 90 days prior to the mass layoffs at Mr. Goodbuys in January/February 1992. Therefore, Goodman did not qualify as an "affected employee" under WARN, and his pleadings failed to state a claim for relief. Consequently, the court granted the Debtors-Defendants' motion, dismissing Goodman's complaint with prejudice and expunging his Proof of Claim No. 833.

BankruptcyMotion to DismissWARN ActEmployment TerminationSeverance PayProof of ClaimAdversary ProceedingChapter 11Pro Se LitigantMass Layoff
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re St. James Mechanical, Inc.

ITT Sheraton Corporation (ITT) moved to extend its time to file a proof of claim or to have the notice of appointment of the Creditors Committee deemed an informal claim in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of St. James Mechanical, Inc. (the Debtor). The Court denied both aspects of ITT's motion. The Court ruled that ITT no longer possessed a pre-petition claim against the Debtor because it was discharged upon the confirmation of the reorganization plan, thus making Rule 9006(b) for extending claim filing time inapplicable. Additionally, the Court found that the Notice of Appointment did not constitute a valid informal proof of claim as it was not filed by ITT and lacked sufficient intent. However, the Court determined that despite ITT's failure to file a timely claim, it is still entitled to the treatment outlined in the confirmed plan, as the plan's provisions are binding on all parties, acting as res judicata, even if they contained legal errors in ITT's inclusion.

BankruptcyChapter 11Proof of ClaimExcusable NeglectPlan ConfirmationDischargeDue ProcessRes JudicataInformal ClaimCreditors Committee
References
33
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00187 [179 AD3d 1228]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Reardon v. Global Cash Card, Inc.

The case, Matter of Reardon v Global Cash Card, Inc., involves an appeal concerning the validity of 12 NYCRR part 192, regulations governing wage payment methods, including payroll debit cards, adopted by the Commissioner of Labor. Global Cash Card, Inc., a payroll debit card service provider, challenged these regulations, leading to their revocation by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The Commissioner then successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to annul the IBA's determination. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the Commissioner acted within her delegated legislative authority in promulgating the regulations, despite modifying the order to strike certain extraneous proof.

Labor LawWage PaymentPayroll Debit CardsAdministrative RegulationsRule-making AuthorityIndustrial Board of Appeals (IBA)CPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCommissioner of Labor
References
15
Case No. Proof of Claim No. 149
Regular Panel Decision

In re DeWitt Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc.

The Debtor, DeWitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., moved to expunge the priority portion of a claim filed by United Staffing Registry, Inc. The Claimant sought priority status for social security, Medicare, and unemployment payments made for temporary employees it provided, citing 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5). Bankruptcy Judge Allan L. Gropper analyzed the application of § 507(a)(5) in light of case precedents, including Howard Delivery Service, Inc. The Court determined that the priority under § 507(a)(5) is intended to protect contributions for a debtor's direct employees, and the temporary employees were not employees of DeWitt. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was sustained, disallowing the priority and reclassifying the entire claim as a general unsecured claim, while also denying the Debtor's request for legal fees.

Bankruptcy LawPriority ClaimsEmployee Benefit Plans11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)Temporary EmployeesUnsecured ClaimsIndemnificationLegal FeesClaim ExpungementStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Seatrain Lines, Inc.

Seatrain Lines, Inc., operating as a debtor-in-possession under Chapter 11, objected to a proof of claim filed by the BSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund. The Pension Fund sought $323,163.00 in withdrawal liability, asserting Seatrain was an 'employer' under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 due to its prior engagement of stevedores for longshoremen services. Seatrain argued it was not an employer because the longshoremen were hired, paid, and controlled by independent stevedores, not Seatrain directly. The court examined common law indicia of employment and congressional intent behind the Multiemployer Act. It concluded that Seatrain was neither a common law employer nor an employer under the Multiemployer Act, and thus had no withdrawal liability. The Pension Fund's claim was consequently ordered expunged.

BankruptcyMultiemployer Pension PlanWithdrawal LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorLongshoremenERISAChapter 11Proof of ClaimClaim Objection
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,510 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