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

Stratus Services Group, Inc. v. Kash 'N Gold, Ltd.

An employment agency, Stratus Services Group, Inc., failed to conduct required background checks for temporary workers provided to Kash ’N Gold, Ltd. (KNG). Following a burglary at KNG's warehouse by three of these workers, KNG's insurer, American Home Assurance Company, compensated KNG for its losses. American Home, as subrogee, then sued Stratus for breach of contract. Initially, the Supreme Court found a breach but no proximate cause for the damages. However, an appellate court reversed this decision, determining that Stratus's breach was indeed a proximate cause of the damages, and awarded American Home judgment of $241,251.71 against Stratus.

Breach of contractProximate causationSubrogation claimEmployment agency liabilityFailure to conduct background checksWarehouse burglaryInsurance claimAppellate reversalContractual damagesNew York law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deluca v. Arch Insurance Group

This case involves an appeal from an order and judgment concerning an arbitration award. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, confirmed an arbitration award dated December 12, 2011, in favor of the petitioner, and denied a cross-petition by Arch Insurance Group and Gallagher Bassett Services to vacate the award. Arch Insurance Group and Gallagher Bassett Services appealed this decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order dated June 5, 2012, as the right of direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the petitioner's service of the demand for arbitration proper and noting that insufficiencies did not warrant vacatur. The arbitrator's award was found to have evidentiary support and a rational basis, and was not duplicative of any worker’s compensation benefits. One bill of costs was awarded to the petitioner.

Arbitration ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewInsurance ArbitrationUninsured MotoristUnderinsured MotoristEvidentiary SupportArbitrary and Capricious StandardSufficiency of Arbitration Demand
References
9
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03533 [239 AD3d 481]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2025

MevRam Servs., LLC v. Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding a 'no-poaching' provision within staffing agreements between MevRam Services, LLC and Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC, along with its affiliates. MevRam Services, LLC furnished employees to the Arlo hotels, and the agreement prohibited defendants from hiring these employees for a period. Defendants moved to dismiss MevRam's claims, arguing the provision violated the New York City Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (DBSWPA) and constituted unenforceable penalties. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the no-poaching provision did not violate the DBSWPA as employees were not displaced, and defendants failed to demonstrate any overriding public policy concerns or that the fees were penalties.

No-Poaching ClauseStaffing AgreementBreach of ContractLiquidated DamagesMotion to DismissDisplaced Building Service Workers Protection ActAppellate DivisionContract LawEmployment LawHotel Industry
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06200
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Matter of NYAHSA Servs., Inc. v. Special Funds Group

This case concerns an appeal by NYAHSA Services, Inc., the workers' compensation insurance carrier for St. Patrick's Nursing Home, from an order denying its petition for judicial approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc. The underlying matter involved Karen DiNoia, who sustained injuries in 2001 during employment and settled a third-party personal injury action in 2005 for $400,000. Although NYAHSA consented, the Special Funds Group's consent was not obtained at the time, which is crucial for the carrier to be reimbursed from the Special Disability Fund. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing a lack of required documentation. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the decision, finding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay in seeking judicial relief was not the petitioner's fault, and the Special Funds Group was not prejudiced, thus granting the petition.

Nunc Pro TuncPersonal Injury SettlementJudicial ApprovalAppellate ReviewSpecial Disability FundInsurance Carrier ReimbursementSupreme Court DiscretionDelayPrejudiceReasonableness of Settlement
References
10
Case No. CA 10-02269
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2011

ELLICOTT GROUP, LLC v. STATE OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE DEPT.

This case addresses an appeal concerning the authority of the State of New York Executive Department Office of General Services (OGS) to mandate a prevailing wage clause in a lease agreement with Ellicott Group, LLC, for privately owned property. OGS had adopted a policy requiring prevailing wages for certain work, even if it did not meet the technical definition of 'public work' under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court, Erie County, had granted summary judgment to Ellicott Group, LLC, concluding that OGS lacked statutory authority and violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, holding that OGS, as an administrative body, usurped the legislative function by enacting a policy defining when prevailing wages should be paid, a role reserved for the Legislature.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 8Labor Law Article 9Public WorkLease AgreementExecutive AuthorityLegislative FunctionSeparation of PowersAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. ADJ10108024
Regular
Jun 21, 2018

SUSAN N. GALLEGO vs. IHSS - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Legally Uninsured, Administered by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration to correct the employer's identity. The Board amended the Findings of Fact to accurately reflect the employer as "IHSS - California Department of Social Services, Legally Uninsured, Administered by York Risk Services Group." This amendment supersedes the previous identification of the employer. Otherwise, the original Findings of Fact remain affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactLegally UninsuredYork Risk Services GroupJointly EmployedIHSSCalifornia Department of Social ServicesAdministrative Law JudgeDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03994
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2023

Miller v. W Servs. Group, LLC

David L. Miller (plaintiff) sustained injuries from a slip and fall, receiving workers' compensation benefits from Safety National Casualty Corp., the insurer for his employer, Apple, Inc. Miller settled his personal injury claim against W Services Group, LLC for $1,350,000. He then attempted a "walk away" agreement with Safety National, where the insurer would waive its lien in exchange for Miller waiving future workers' compensation benefits. After an initial agreement by email, Safety National reneged upon learning Miller returned to work. The Supreme Court in Onondaga County enforced this settlement, but the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed, ruling that any such agreement involving a waiver of a workers' compensation lien requires approval from the Workers' Compensation Board to be enforceable. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings on alternative relief.

Workers' Compensation LawSettlement EnforceabilityLien WaiverAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardThird-Party LiabilityInsurance SubrogationContract DisputeStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. 25 NY3d 907
Regular Panel Decision
2015-XX-XX

Government Employees Insurance v. Avanguard Medical Group, PLLC

This case addresses whether no-fault insurance carriers are obligated to pay facility fees to New York State-accredited office-based surgery (OBS) centers for the use of their premises and support services. The court concluded that neither existing statutes nor regulations mandate such payments. Plaintiffs, a group of GEICO insurers, successfully sought a declaratory judgment that they are not legally required to reimburse Avanguard Medical Group, PLLC, for OBS facility fees, totaling over $1.3 million. The decision affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling, emphasizing that OBS facility fees are not explicitly covered by statute or fee schedules, nor do they fall under reimbursable "professional health services" as per 11 NYCRR 68.5. The court highlighted the distinct regulatory frameworks for OBS centers compared to hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, declining to mandate policy changes best left to the legislature.

No-Fault InsuranceOffice-Based Surgery (OBS)Facility FeesInsurance LawBasic Economic LossFee SchedulesWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of Financial ServicesStatutory InterpretationRegulatory Framework
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 8,199 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