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. 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 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. 2013-1470 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Ultimate Health Products, Inc., as assignee of Paul Luckner, against Hereford Insurance Co. The plaintiff sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, had previously denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion, dismissing the complaint. The defendant successfully argued that the policy in question was a workers' compensation insurance policy, not an automobile insurance policy, thus establishing a lack of coverage for no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term affirmed the Civil Court's order, reiterating that a lack of coverage defense is not precluded by issues of propriety or timeliness of a denial of claim form.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation PolicyAutomobile InsuranceSummary JudgmentLack of Coverage DefenseAppellate ReviewAssigned BenefitsInsurance Policy InterpretationCivil Court OrderFirst-Party Benefits
References
2
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. 15
Regular Panel Decision

Beltre v. Lititz Healthcare Staffing Solutions LLC

Plaintiffs R. Anthony Beltre and Sean Jones initiated a class action against Lititz Healthcare Staffing Solutions LLC, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), and John Doe defendants, alleging overtime and 'spread of hours' violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Defendant Lititz moved to dismiss the complaint, contending it was not the plaintiffs' employer or joint employer, a crucial element for claims under FLSA and NYLL. The Court, employing the 'economic reality' test for employer status, reviewed affidavits and arguments from both sides. Ultimately, the Court denied Lititz's motion, concluding that the complaint sufficiently alleged an employment relationship and that evidence, including Lititz's payroll responsibilities and contractual designation as 'sole employer,' made its employer status plausible.

Employment LawFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawOvertime ClaimsJoint Employer StatusMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Economic Reality TestStaffing Agency LiabilityX-ray Technicians
References
19
Case No. LBO 0355505
Regular
Feb 26, 2008

REBECCA BETANCOURT vs. CHECKMATE STAFFING SERVICES, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND, J.C. PENNEY, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE c/o AIG CLAIM SERVICES

This case involves an applicant injured while working for Checkmate Staffing Services, a general employer, and J.C. Penney, Inc., a special employer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a prior decision, notably reversing the administrative law judge's (ALJ) assessment of penalties against Checkmate and remanding the issue of Checkmate's insurance coverage to the trial level. The WCAB affirmed joint and several liability for benefits against Checkmate, J.C. Penney, American Home Assurance, and the Uninsured Employers Fund (UEF), ordering American Home Assurance to administer benefits while reserving jurisdiction to determine ultimate liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint and Several LiabilitySpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerUninsured Employers FundLabor Code Section 3722Certificate of Liability InsuranceDue ProcessDual Employment Relationship
References
3
Case No. ADJ3974600 (MON 0334960); ADJ4075150 (MON 0334961); ADJ277095 (MON 0358718)
Regular
Feb 17, 2009

GLADYS JIMENEZ vs. ROSS STAFFING, Dba ULTIMATE STAFFING; ZURICH AMERICA, Administered By NOVAPRO RISK SOLUTIONS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the original award to correct clerical errors. Specifically, the temporary disability period was corrected to June 16, 2005, through June 20, 2005. The award was also clarified to reflect that the defendant is entitled to credit for attorney fees against permanent disability advances. Finally, the defendant was found not liable for medical-legal costs that did not comply with Labor Code sections 4061 and 4062.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGladys JimenezRoss StaffingUltimate StaffingZurich AmericaNovapro Risk SolutionsADJ3974600ADJ4075150ADJ277095Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,637 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