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

DeLeon v. Gurda Farms, Inc. (In Re Gurda Farms, Inc.)

This case involves an appeal by thirteen migrant seasonal farmworkers (plaintiffs-appellants), who are creditors of defendants-bankrupts Gurda Farms, Inc. and Stanley Gurda. The farmworkers challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that denied their request to proceed in forma pauperis (without payment of fees) in their appeal. The plaintiffs had previously obtained a judgment against the defendants under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963 and were prosecuting that action in forma pauperis when the defendants filed for bankruptcy, automatically staying the civil suit. The core legal question is whether 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which allows individuals to proceed in forma pauperis, is applicable to creditors appealing a bankruptcy court's decision, especially given the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Kras. The District Court distinguished this case from Kras, noting the plaintiffs' pre-existing in forma pauperis status and the minimal impact on the bankruptcy system's self-supporting goal. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to prosecute this appeal in forma pauperis.

In Forma PauperisBankruptcy AppealCreditor RightsFarm Labor Contractor Registration ActStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionReferees' Salary ActBankruptcy Fees
References
13
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01944 [226 AD3d 836]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2024

Ragusa v. Drazie's Farm II, LLC

The plaintiff, Matthew Ragusa, appealed an order denying his cross-motion to amend the complaint to add Drazie's Farm, LLC as a defendant and granting summary judgment to Drazie's Farm II, LLC on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the relation-back doctrine did not apply because Drazie's Farm II, LLC and Drazie's Farm, LLC were separate entities with potentially different defenses, thus not united in interest. Furthermore, Drazie's Farm II, LLC established that it did not own the property where the accident occurred and therefore could not be held liable under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)A-frame ladderfall from heightpremises liabilityrelation-back doctrinesummary judgmentlimited liability companyproperty ownershipadjoining properties
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1998

High View Fund, L.P. v. Hall

Plaintiffs, The High View Fund, L.P. and The High View Fund, filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims against E. William Hall and Karen W. Hall for violations of federal securities laws, fraudulent inducement, Delaware Blue Sky laws, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of contract. The claims stem from the plaintiffs' $1 million investment in United Golf Properties, Inc. and the defendants' alleged misuse of the company's assets and misrepresentations in an Offering Memorandum. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court, presided over by District Judge Scheindlin, granted dismissal for the federal securities law claims and common law fraud claims, allowing leave to amend. Additionally, the conversion and breach of contract claims were dismissed with prejudice. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for the Delaware Blue Sky law claims, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims.

Securities FraudMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConversionBreach of ContractDelaware Blue Sky LawInvestment Fraud
References
50
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04616 [162 AD3d 1356]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2018

Matter of Elias-Gomez v. Balsam View Dairy Farm

Claimant Antonio Elias-Gomez, a farmhand, sought workers' compensation benefits for a right shoulder injury allegedly sustained in May 2014 while assisting in a difficult calf birth. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, citing lack of timely notice and absence of a compensable accident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim but the Workers' Compensation Board later modified, denying benefits on the grounds that claimant did not sustain an accident in the course of employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The court deferred to the Board's credibility determinations, which included discrediting claimant's account of a calf birth on the alleged injury date and noting inconsistent histories regarding his shoulder pain and injury mechanism.

Workers' Compensation ClaimEmployment InjuryShoulder InjuryFarm AccidentCausal RelationshipSubstantial Evidence ReviewCredibility FindingNotice of InjuryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Admiral Insurance v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

The case involves an insurance dispute between Admiral Insurance Company and P&K (plaintiffs) and State Farm (defendant) concerning coverage for an underlying personal injury lawsuit. P&K, a contractor, was supposed to be covered as an additional insured under a State Farm policy through its subcontractor, Shahid Enterprises. After a Shahid employee was injured, triggering a lawsuit against P&K, Admiral sought defense and indemnification from State Farm, which disclaimed coverage due to late notice. The Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding that Insurance Law § 3420 (d) applied but a factual dispute existed regarding the timeliness of State Farm's disclaimer. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that triable issues of fact remained as to whether Admiral's failure to provide information contributed to State Farm's delay in disclaiming coverage.

Insurance disputeDisclaimer of coverageLate noticeAdditional insuredSummary judgmentTriable issues of factInsurance Law § 3420 (d)Co-primary insurerIndemnificationDeclaratory judgment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm (Lewis Farm) sought to build housing for farm workers in Essex County, within the Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) asserted jurisdiction, issued a cease and desist order, and levied a $50,000 civil penalty, claiming the structures were 'single family dwellings' requiring a permit. Lewis Farm challenged this, contending the housing constituted 'agricultural use structures' exempt from APA jurisdiction under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act. The Supreme Court annulled the APA's determination, agreeing with Lewis Farm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that farmworker housing directly and customarily associated with agricultural use falls under the 'agricultural use structure' exemption, thus not requiring an APA permit.

Land UseAdirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationCPLR Article 78Farmworker HousingZoning ExemptionEnvironmental Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Champagne v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Selma Champagne appealed an order denying her motion for summary judgment and granting cross-motions by State Farm and John L. Homan. The case originated from a 1987 motor vehicle accident where Homan allegedly struck Samuel Champagne, who later settled with State Farm for the policy limit. Selma, Samuel's wife, then sought a declaratory judgment that State Farm was obligated to defend and indemnify Homan in her separate suit for loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to both defendants. The appellate court modified the order, denying Homan's cross-motion, ruling that Selma's loss of consortium claim remained viable despite her husband's settlement as she was not a party to it. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for State Farm, holding that State Farm had fulfilled its policy obligations by paying the "per person" bodily injury limit to Samuel, as loss of consortium damages are derivative and do not constitute a separate "bodily injury" under the insurance policy.

Loss of ConsortiumMotor Vehicle AccidentDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentInsurance Policy LimitsBodily InjuryDerivative ClaimSettlementAppellate ReviewPolicy Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1987

Ebbecke v. Bay View Environmental Services, Inc.

Charles Ebbecke suffered severe injuries from a chemical splash while waste was being loaded into a tanker. He initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Bay View Environmental Services, Inc., the company responsible for loading. Bay View subsequently impleaded Grumman Aerospace Corp., Ebbecke's employer, seeking contractual indemnification. Grumman, in turn, claimed indemnification from Bay View under a purchase order contract. The Supreme Court dismissed Grumman's indemnification claim. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the contractual clause did not explicitly demonstrate an "unmistakable intent" for Bay View to indemnify Grumman for Grumman's own negligence, especially considering ambiguities are resolved against the drafter, Grumman.

Contractual IndemnificationPersonal InjuryThird-Party ClaimNegligenceContract InterpretationTypewritten vs. Printed ProvisionsRisk AllocationUnmistakable IntentAmbiguity in ContractAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duffy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Plaintiff Mary Duffy sued her former employer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, alleging age discrimination and retaliation after she was terminated at age 59. Duffy claimed harassment and a vendetta by supervisors, while State Farm maintained she was incompetent, accommodated her performance issues repeatedly, and fired her for poor work and bad attitude. The court reviewed her Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim and her retaliation claim, applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis. Though Duffy established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that State Farm's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm on both claims.

Age DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act)McDonnell Douglas AnalysisPrima Facie CasePretext for DiscriminationJob PerformanceEmployee TerminationWorkplace Harassment
References
17
Case No. 2014-1947 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2017

Acupuncture Now, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Acupuncture Now, P.C., as assignee, against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. from an order of the Civil Court. The order granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment to dismiss certain causes of action and to compel plaintiff's deposition. Acupuncture Now, P.C. contested State Farm's fee reductions for acupuncture services, which were based on the workers' compensation fee schedule for chiropractors. The Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding that insurers may use this fee schedule for licensed acupuncturists. Furthermore, the court found the order compelling plaintiff's deposition proper, as State Farm was defending the remaining cause of action on grounds of lack of medical necessity.

No-fault benefitsAcupuncture servicesFee scheduleWorkers' compensationSummary judgmentDepositionMedical necessityInsurance disputeAppellate TermChiropractic services
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 758 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