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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ADJ9456228 (MF), ADJ9341963
Regular
Oct 09, 2018

MARIA COLCHADO vs. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING HOLDING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SELECT STAFFING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, TRI-STATE STAFFING, CIGA administered by SEDGWICK for LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine Toll Global Forwarding's employer status. While the ALJ found Toll Global was not a special employer, the Board reversed this, finding Toll Global was indeed the special employer. This determination was based on Toll Global's direct supervision and instruction of the applicant. The staffing agencies, Select Staffing and Tri-State Staffing, were designated as the general employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGASpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerToll Global ForwardingSelect StaffingTri-State StaffingACE American InsuranceJoint Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
11
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. 2023-03-1417
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

Everett, Delta v. Life Style Staffing

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a trial court's order granting temporary disability benefits to employee Delta Everett. Everett suffered a work injury while employed by Life Style Staffing. Initially, she accepted light duty but did not return due to a driving restriction. Almost a year later, an authorized orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Patrick Bolt, provided an opinion stating Everett should have been completely restricted from work from the injury date until his nurse practitioner's examination, then placed on light duty. The Appeals Board found the trial court appropriately weighed the medical evidence, accepting Dr. Bolt's opinion, particularly since the employer offered no rebuttal. The Board denied the employee's request to deem the appeal frivolous.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsLight DutyWork RestrictionsOrthopedic SpecialistCausal ConnectionExpedited HearingFrivolous AppealMedical OpinionAppeals Board Decision
References
10
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00044 [212 AD3d 419]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2023

Sakthivel v. Industrious Staffing Co., LLC

Plaintiff Suba Sakthivel appealed an order dismissing her complaint against Industrious Staffing Company, LLC. Sakthivel, proceeding pro se, alleged unlawful termination based on complaints about safety violations following a coworker assault, claiming protection under Labor Law §§ 215 and 740. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that Sakthivel, as a staff accountant, was not covered by Labor Law § 200, which applies to construction workers. Her Labor Law § 740 claim failed because a coworker assault does not meet the criteria for a "substantial and specific danger to public health or safety." Additionally, her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was dismissed for not alleging conduct "utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

Employment LawRetaliation ClaimWrongful TerminationSafe WorkplaceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAppellate ReviewCPLR 3211 DismissalLabor Law ViolationsCoworker AssaultStaff Accountant
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Copper v. Cavalry Staffing, LLC

Derek Copper and Leslie Minto filed a collective action against Cavalry Staffing, Tracy Hester, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime, minimum-wage violations, and inaccurate wage statements. Enterprise's motion to dismiss based on not being an employer was denied, with the court finding sufficient pleading for joint employer status. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss was denied for overtime and wage statement claims, but granted for minimum-wage claims. The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a collective action, finding adequate factual showing from named plaintiffs and additional affidavits. The parties were directed to agree on notice procedures for opt-in plaintiffs.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawUnpaid OvertimeMinimum WageWage StatementsJoint EmployerCollective ActionConditional CertificationMotion to DismissWage Theft Prevention Act
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 3,485 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