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 NY Slip Op 07468
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2018

People v. Ultimate Homes, Inc.

Guy Poulin, a drywall installer, was injured after falling through an unguarded stairwell opening at a residential construction site. He and his wife sued the general contractor, Ultimate Homes, Inc., among others, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court's order, which had denied Ultimate's motion to dismiss Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims and its cross-claim for indemnification, was appealed. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, affirming the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on Labor Law § 240(1) against Ultimate. The court granted Ultimate's motions to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it, finding the accident arose from the method of work and Ultimate lacked supervisory control. Additionally, Ultimate's cross-claim for common-law indemnification against J.G. Fortin Drywall, Inc. was granted, and the lower court's sua sponte dismissal of Ultimate's cross-claims was reversed.

Personal injuryConstruction accidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law negligenceIndemnificationContributionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Summary judgmentAppellate Division
References
50
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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2003

Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen

Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. (Cardinal) appealed the denial of a temporary injunction sought to enforce a non-competition covenant and prevent unfair competition by its former employee, Jay Bowen. Bowen, a former scheduler, joined a competing firm, CompleteRx, after leaving Cardinal, prompting Cardinal's lawsuit alleging breach of covenants and misappropriation of trade secrets. The trial court denied the injunction without stating reasons, leading Cardinal to argue error based on irreparable injury or the inapplicability of such a requirement under the Covenants Not to Compete Act or the 'inevitable disclosure' doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Cardinal failed to prove irreparable injury and clarifying that the Covenants Not to Compete Act governs final remedies, not preliminary relief, thus requiring proof of irreparable injury for a temporary injunction. The court also declined to adopt or apply the 'inevitable disclosure' doctrine under the circumstances.

Non-competition CovenantTemporary InjunctionTrade SecretsUnfair CompetitionIrreparable InjuryAdequate Legal RemedyCovenants Not to Compete ActInevitable Disclosure DoctrineEmployment AgreementBreach of Contract
References
97
Showing 1-10 of 2,390 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