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

Incorporated Village of Nissequogue v. Suffolk County Department of Civil Service

The Village of Nissequogue initiated a special proceeding against the Suffolk County Department of Civil Service after the department refused to certify the payroll for police officers Dennis McHugh and Roger Leigh. The officers, appointed in 1982 and 1984, had served commendably despite not being appointed from an official eligibility list. The department, aware of the irregular appointments since 1986, did not act until 1989 when it blocked payroll certification, prompting this legal challenge. The court examined the applicability of a 1984 amendment to Civil Service Law § 100 (5), which presumes proper appointment after three years, even for initially irregular appointments. The court ruled that the department could not refuse payroll certification, denied the department's motion to dismiss, and granted the officers' cross-petition for payment, citing the department's inaction despite prior knowledge.

Civil Service LawPayroll CertificationPolice OfficersIllegal AppointmentConstitutional LawSpecial ProceedingSuffolk CountyMerit SystemProbationary PeriodStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zeluck v. Board of Education

The case involves a motion by the Attorney-General to dismiss a petition filed by certain teachers. The teachers sought to enjoin the Superintendent of Schools from implementing payroll deductions mandated by Civil Service Law section 210, also known as the Taylor Law, for their alleged participation in a strike. The petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional, infringing upon rights to free association, speech, and equal protection, and that its payroll deduction provisions constituted a bill of attainder and violated due process. The court, citing precedents, rejected the arguments regarding free association, speech, and equal protection. It also found the due process procedures for payroll deductions sufficient, concluding the law was not a bill of attainder. Therefore, the motion to dismiss was granted.

Taylor LawCivil Service LawPublic Employee StrikesPayroll DeductionsDue ProcessFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechEqual ProtectionConstitutionality of StatuteMotion to Dismiss
References
5
Case No. ADJ3923408
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

Andrea Seyfried vs. Compass Films, Inc., National Surety Company/Fireman's Fund, Power Payroll, Inc., California Insurance Guarantee Association for Legion Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury while employed by both Power Payroll (general employer) and Compass Films (special employer). Power Payroll was insured by Legion Insurance, whose obligations are now handled by CIGA. Compass Films was insured by Fireman's Fund. The Board rescinded the prior order finding Power Payroll as the sole employer and returned the case for proceedings to determine the respective liabilities of CIGA and Fireman's Fund. CIGA is not liable if Fireman's Fund policy constitutes "other insurance" available to the applicant.

General employerSpecial employerDual employmentPayroll servicesFilm industryInsurance Guarantee AssociationInsurer insolvencySpecial employer controlPayroll companyProduction manager
References
22
Case No. ADJ2923882 (VNO 0550303)
Regular
Jan 29, 2014

MARCIAL MARTINEZ vs. MONARCH dba PES PAYROLL, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, FOAMEX, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case involves applicant Marcial Martinez, injured while working for Foamex, who was leased by HR Business Staffing and paid by Monarch/PES. The Appeals Board affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding that Monarch's policy WC 573-39-25, due to its "alternate employer endorsement" and contract with Air Ground Manpower, provided workers' compensation coverage. The Board determined that Monarch's role in processing payroll, coupled with the written agreement specifying insurance provision, satisfied the endorsement's requirements. Despite Monarch's arguments regarding its limited payroll role and allegations of fraud, the policy provisions and parties' conduct established coverage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderArbitrator's DecisionInsurance CoverageMonarch ConsultingPES PayrollAmerican Home AssuranceHR Business StaffingAir Ground Manpower
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Cantarella

This case involves several defendants indicted for enterprise corruption and related crimes concerning a criminal enterprise known as the "Post Circulation Crew" operating within the New York Post's circulation department. The enterprise, associated with the Bonnano crime organization, engaged in extortion, coercion, falsification of business records, larceny, and bribery for financial gain. Schemes included usury, influencing union rules, larcenous "returns" schemes, and payroll scams involving non-existent employees. The court addresses the defendants' arguments regarding the vagueness of the enterprise corruption statute and the interpretation of "pattern of criminal activity" and "individual culpability." It provides a detailed analysis of the evidence for each defendant. The court ultimately dismisses the enterprise corruption count against Richard Cantarella, Vincent DiSario, Anthony Michele, Gerard Bilboa, Corey Ellenthal, and Michael Fago due to insufficient evidence of three connected criminal acts or intent to further the criminal enterprise. However, the enterprise corruption count is sustained for Anthony Turzio based on his involvement in forgery and conspiracy to commit grand larceny in the "Murro" payroll scheme.

Enterprise CorruptionOrganized CrimeRacketeeringCriminal EnterprisePattern of Criminal ActivityGrand LarcenyForgeryFalsifying Business RecordsConspiracy to DefraudSufficiency of Evidence
References
26
Case No. ADJ3919401 (POM 0295843)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

LUIS MUNIZ vs. XCESS PAYROLL SERVICES

This order dismisses Xcess Payroll Services' Petition for Reconsideration because it was not verified, violating Labor Code section 5902. The Board also indicated that even if verified, the petition would have been denied on the merits. The dismissal is based on procedural grounds and the lack of evidence in the record to support the petitioner's claims, particularly regarding a "Verizon issue." The petitioner failed to properly identify themselves in the heading, contributing to the dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902WCJ Report and RecommendationOptimum PharmacyVerizon issueLien claimantDismissedAdjudicationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
1
Case No. ADJ6888509 ADJ6888503
Regular
Jun 26, 2014

REYNA OLIVAR vs. EZ PAYROLL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, GALLAGHER BASSETT ORANGE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, concerning Reyna Olivar and defendants EZ Payroll Staffing Solutions and Gallagher Bassett, involved a petition for reconsideration. The petitioner has formally withdrawn their petition for reconsideration of the October 18, 2013 decision. Consequently, the Board has dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnApplicantDefendantsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and OrderLong Beach District OfficeOctober 18 2013June 26 2014
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blair v. Texas Employment Commission

William G. Blair appealed an order requiring him to produce employment and payroll records to the Texas Employment Commission (TEC). Blair claimed the records were privileged under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, fearing self-incrimination, and offered to produce them only if granted immunity. The Attorney General then filed an application in the 72nd District Court of Lubbock County, which ordered Blair to produce the records. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the "required records" doctrine, which is an exception to the self-incrimination privilege for records mandated by law for governmental regulation, especially concerning public welfare and the collection of taxes for unemployment compensation.

Required Records DoctrineSelf-IncriminationFifth AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEmployment RecordsPayroll RecordsAdministrative SubpoenaGovernmental RegulationPublic Welfare
References
4
Case No. ADJ10233708
Regular
Jan 17, 2020

ARTURO CHAVEZ vs. PURPOSE DRIVEN PERSONNEL, HARTFORD, COUNTRYWIDE PAYROLL, NORTH BAY DISTRIBUTION, COMPWEST, H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, TRAVELERS

This case concerns the employment status of applicant Arturo Chavez and the resulting workers' compensation liability. The WCAB rescinded the prior findings of fact regarding employment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The primary dispute revolves around whether Purpose Driven Personnel was applicant's employer, given its reliance on Countrywide for payroll and workers' compensation insurance. The Board emphasized the need for further development of evidence, particularly regarding employment agreements between potential employers, to clarify the employer-employee relationship and subsequent insurance coverage.

Special employerGeneral employerDual employmentJoint and several liabilityLabor Code section 3602(d)PEOEmployee leasingService agreementWorkers' compensation insuranceFindings of Fact
References
11
Case No. ADJ8005462
Regular
Dec 02, 2013

PEDRO VALDERRAMA, SR. (Deceased), MARIA SOLIS (Spouse) et al. vs. LOS AMIGOS CONSTRUCTION, ACEO PAYROLL CO., CASTLE POINT INSURANCE CO., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the original award finding that Pedro Valderrama's death on September 25, 2009, was industrially caused. The Board found substantial evidence supported that Castle Point Insurance Company was the insurer for Los Amigos Construction at the time of the injury, despite petitioners' claims that payroll services had switched to Select Focus. Evidence indicated that Select Focus had not finalized any agreement or secured insurance coverage for Los Amigos Construction before the date of injury, and that Castle Point's policy was still in effect. The Board also noted a prior OSHA decision that similarly found Select Focus was not the employer and had no exposure in this case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPedro ValderramaMaria SolisLos Amigos ConstructionACEO Payroll Co.Castle Point Insurance Co.ACE American Insurance Co.Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardindustrial injury
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 203 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