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. 2018-01-0699
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2019

Harrison, Elixabeth v. Chattanooga Staffing

Ms. Harrison, a caregiver, suffered a neck and shoulder injury while working for Chattanooga Staffing. The Court initially ordered temporary disability and medical benefits. However, Chattanooga Staffing later sought an expedited hearing to discontinue these benefits, disputing the work-relatedness of her injuries. Relying on Dr. Alex Sielatycki's medical opinion, which indicated the employment could not be definitively confirmed to contribute more than fifty percent to her condition or need for surgery, the Court found Ms. Harrison failed to rebut the statutory presumption favoring the panel physician. Consequently, the Court granted Chattanooga Staffing's request, terminating Ms. Harrison's medical and temporary disability benefits.

Temporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsCausation DisputeExpedited HearingPanel Physician OpinionPre-existing Condition AggravationStatutory PresumptionCaregiver InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder Injury
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02849 [204 AD3d 1348]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

Matter of Cruz (Strikeforce Staffing LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Strikeforce Staffing LLC liable for unemployment insurance contributions, classifying Nelson Ruiz Cruz and other workers as employees. Strikeforce, a staffing agency, connected Cruz with a bakery client, who managed his employment and daily tasks. Strikeforce's involvement largely consisted of initial screening and payroll processing based on client approvals. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's determination. The court ruled that there was not substantial evidence to support an employer-employee relationship, as Strikeforce did not exercise sufficient control over the means or results of the workers' services. The decision was remitted back to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipStaffing AgencyIndependent ContractorControl TestSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate DivisionWorkers' ClassificationRemuneration Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2014

In re Arbitration between City of Lockport & Lockport Professional Firefighters Ass'n

The petitioner, an employer of firefighters, appealed an order denying its petition to stay arbitration and granting the respondent's cross-motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose from the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA), specifically a "staffing provision" that set a minimum number of firefighters per shift. Petitioner reduced the minimum staffing level from nine to seven firefighters per shift after removing an ambulance from service. Respondent, the firefighters' bargaining representative, filed a grievance, arguing a violation of the CBA, and demanded arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's request to stay arbitration, compelling it instead. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the staffing provision was a safety provision, not a non-arbitrable job security provision, and therefore the dispute was arbitrable under the strong public policy favoring arbitration in public sector labor disputes. The court also found that the merits of the staffing level reduction were for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationPublic PolicyJob Security ProvisionSafety ProvisionFirefightersMinimum Staffing LevelsGrievance
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. 04-14-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2015

Andrea Collie v. IBEX Staffing Solutions, Inc. and Pronto General Agency, Ltd. D/B/A Pronto Insurance

Andrea Collie sued IBEX Staffing Solutions, Inc. and Pronto Insurance for race discrimination and retaliatory discharge. A jury found in favor of the appellees. Collie appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not providing a permissive-pretext instruction to the jury. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's discretion in jury instructions, noting that the jury question tracked the Texas Pattern Jury Charge and correctly placed the burden of proof on Collie. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the requested instruction was not reasonably necessary for a proper verdict.

Race DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeJury InstructionsPermissive-Pretext InstructionAbuse of DiscretionTexas Labor CodeEmployment LawAppellate ReviewTrial Court ErrorBurden of Proof
References
22
Case No. 2016-07-2377
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2017

Jimenez, Rosa v. Xclusive Staffing of Tennessee, LLC

Rosa Jimenez, an employee of Xclusive Staffing of Tennessee, LLC, sought medical benefits for a right shoulder injury sustained on December 9, 2015, while performing housekeeping duties. The employer disputed the claim, citing inconsistencies in injury accounts and presenting opposing medical opinions. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Nashville, presided over by Judge Kenneth M. Switzer, found Ms. Jimenez's testimony credible despite minor discrepancies. Weighing the medical opinions of Dr. William Mayfield, who examined Ms. Jimenez, and Dr. Sean Kaminsky, who performed a record review, the court accredited Dr. Mayfield's opinion. Consequently, the court ordered Xclusive Staffing or its carrier to provide Ms. Jimenez with medical treatment for the work-related injury.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearCredibility AssessmentMedical CausationExpert Witness TestimonyOrthopedic SpecialistsEmployee Testimony
References
5
Case No. 11-04-00191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2005

Fernando Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing

Fernando Morales, a temporary employee, sued Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing for negligence after sustaining a hand injury at Martin Resources' Odessa facility. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, citing the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed whether the defendants had sufficiently proven their workers' compensation insurance coverage, a necessary condition for the exclusive remedy provision to apply. The court found that neither Select Professional Staffing nor Martin Resources, Inc. provided adequate evidence of explicit workers' compensation coverage for themselves. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the burden of proof for establishing affirmative defenses like the exclusive remedy provision.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedySummary Judgment ReversalTemporary EmployeesStaff LeasingNegligence ClaimsAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployer LiabilityTexas Labor Law
References
8
Case No. 04-17-00291-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2018

Roberto Avila Rodriguez v. Panther Expedited Services Inc., Amigo Staffing, Inc., Dicex International, Inc.

Appellant Roberto Avila Rodriguez brought a negligence action against Panther Expedited Services, Inc., Amigo Staffing, Inc., and Dicex International, Inc., seeking to recover for injuries sustained while operating a forklift. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dicex and Panther, dismissing Dicex’s third-party claims against Amigo Staffing as moot. Rodriguez appealed, challenging the summary judgments and the dismissal of Dicex's claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Panther, finding no vicarious liability under federal motor carrier regulations or common law, and insufficient evidence of Panther's own negligence. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for Dicex and remanded that portion of the case, concluding that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act provision Dicex relied upon was inapplicable to the date of injury.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActTemporary Employment ServicesFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNondelegable DutyIndependent ContractorRight of Control
References
58
Case No. ADJ4449218
Regular
Mar 04, 2010

LUIS ALVARADO vs. STAFFING SERVICES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here is a summary of the case in a maximum of four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, which found jurisdiction over a dispute between an injured worker's applicant and defendant Staffing Services, Inc. The ALJ correctly determined that there was no express agreement between Staffing Services and the lien claimant, Beverly Hills Pharmacy, fixing payment amounts, thus Labor Code section 5304 did not divest the Board of jurisdiction. The Board also found that removal was not appropriate for this final determination. Procedural arguments regarding a denied continuance due to the defense attorney's illness were also rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalLien ClaimantExpress AgreementLabor Code Section 5304JurisdictionStaffing Services Inc.State Compensation Insurance FundBeverly Hills Pharmacy
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2009

Plotkin v. Joekel

The case involves a complex dispute among individuals and entities in the employee staffing industry. Applicant Garry Plotkin initiated a lawsuit against Charles Joekel, Texas Staffing Services, Inc., Kenneth Joekel, and F.W. Services, Inc., alleging breach of contract for unpaid sales proceeds and compensation for transferred accounts, as well as breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent conveyance. Counterclaims and third-party claims were filed by the defendants against Plotkin and other related parties for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, tortious interference, and conspiracy. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for all asserted claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appellate court found ambiguities regarding Garry Plotkin's standing and Charles Joekel's individual liability, leading to a reversal of the summary judgment on Plotkin's breach-of-express-contract claim concerning transferred accounts. Additionally, the court reversed summary judgment on Kenneth Joekel's and F.W. Services' counterclaim against Plotkin for tortious interference with an existing non-competition agreement. All other summary judgment rulings were affirmed.

Employee Staffing BusinessBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary Judgment ReviewContract AmbiguityCorporate LiabilityTortious InterferenceCivil ConspiracyFraudulent ConveyanceNo-Evidence Motion
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 5,037 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