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. ADJ7878616
Regular
Jul 02, 2013

Carlotta Hernandez-Diaz vs. Ruben M. Garcia - Farm Labor Contractor, Republic Underwriter Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it lacked merit and was procedurally deficient. The Board admonished the defendant for mislabeling a Request for Change of Venue as a Petition for Reconsideration, noting it was their second such unsuccessful attempt to change venue. The defendant failed to timely object to the original venue selection and did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for a petition for removal. Consequently, the Board denied the defendant's petition, adopting the Administrative Law Judge's report and recommendation.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationRequest for Change of VenueDocument Separator SheetAdministrative Law JudgePetition for RemovalVenueLabor Code Section 5501.5(d)Stockton District OfficeSan Joaquin County
References
0
Case No. ADJ2324956 (RIV 0062498)
Regular
Mar 18, 2013

HAYDEE MURILLO vs. ALVAREZ FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed Haydee Murillo's petition for reconsideration in the case against Alvarez Farm Labor Contractor and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasons stated in the workers' compensation administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalReport and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJAlvarez Farm Labor ContractorState Compensation Insurance FundHaydee MurilloADJ2324956
References
0
Case No. ADJ7774631
Regular
Aug 16, 2019

IGNACIO GARCIA vs. TRINIDAD RODRIGUEZ dba RODRIGUEZ FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SERGIO RODRIGUEZ

This case involves a worker's compensation claim by Ignacio Garcia. The primary issue was whether Garcia was employed by Trinidad Rodriguez dba Rodriguez Farm Labor Contractor or Sergio Rodriguez. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, affirming the judge's finding that Trinidad Rodriguez was the employer. While the Board noted the applicant has the burden to prove employment, they found the evidence supported the conclusion that Garcia was employed by Trinidad Rodriguez.

Petition for ReconsiderationDenialEmployment StatusFarm Labor ContractorState Compensation Insurance FundGoing and Coming RuleBurden of ProofCredibility DeterminationsInsured EmployerUninsured Employer
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2000

Rosenberg v. Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc.

Robert Rosenberg, an employee of an alarm company, was allegedly injured after tripping over cardboard at a construction site. He and his wife sued Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc. (the general contractor) and Dave Mims Fifth Generation Painting Contractors (a subcontractor) under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Mims but denied Krupinski's motion for similar relief. On appeal, the order was modified; Krupinski's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim was granted, as Krupinski established it had no authority to control the activity causing the injury. However, the motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly denied due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the accident occurred in a passageway or work area and whether specific regulations (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) or (2)) were violated, and whether Krupinski was still the general contractor at the time of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentGeneral Contractor LiabilitySummary JudgmentSafe Place to WorkAppellate DivisionTriable Issue of FactLabor Law CompliancePremises LiabilitySubcontractor
References
3
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
May 03, 2000

RLI Insurance v. New York State Department of Labor

This appeal concerns a dispute between a surety and the Department of Labor over funds held by a school district. The surety, after posting performance and payment bonds for a public improvement project, expended over $176,000 to complete the project and pay laborers following the contractor's default. The Department of Labor sought to withhold funds from the school district for the contractor's underpaid wages on both the subject project and an unrelated one, invoking Labor Law § 220-b (2) (a) (1). The Supreme Court dismissed the surety's application, ruling that the Department of Labor's claim for underpaid wages, even from unrelated projects, was superior. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, establishing that Labor Law § 220-b (2) creates a statutory trust for underpaid wages that takes precedence over a surety's subrogation claims.

Surety bondsPerformance bondPayment bondPublic improvement projectSubrogation rightsUnderpaid wagesPrevailing wageStatutory trustLien LawLabor Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheet Metal Division of Capitol District Sheet Metal, Roofing & Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. Local Union 38 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The plaintiffs, a coalition of sheet metal contractor associations, filed a lawsuit against Local Union 38 and a related employer association, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and labor laws. The core of the dispute was a collective bargaining agreement provision mandating that all sheet metal fabrication be performed within Local 38's geographical jurisdiction, which plaintiffs argued constituted an illegal trade barrier. Defendants countered that the provision was a lawful work preservation clause, protected under labor law exemptions. The court ultimately ruled that the challenged clause was neither a valid work preservation measure nor exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a declaratory judgment, declaring the provision void and unenforceable due to its violation of both the National Labor Relations Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

AntitrustLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Preservation ClauseSherman ActNLRADeclaratory JudgmentTrade BarrierGeographic JurisdictionSecondary Boycott
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chesterfield Associates v. New York State Department of Labor

This case addresses Chesterfield Associates' challenge to the New York Department of Labor's 'annualization' rule (12 NYCRR 220.2 [d]), used to assess compliance with the prevailing wage law (Labor Law art 8) on public projects. Chesterfield disputed the annualization of its profit-sharing pension contributions made on behalf of employees who worked on public projects in Nassau and Suffolk counties between 1994 and 1997. The annualization rule calculates an hourly cash equivalent of benefits by dividing total contributions by total annual hours worked (both public and private). Chesterfield argued this methodology effectively penalized contractors by demanding prevailing rates for private work or forcing cash supplements. The Commissioner of Labor, whose decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals, determined that annualization was a reasonable method to value fringe benefits, prevent cost-shifting, and ensure fair competition among contractors.

Prevailing Wage LawAnnualization RuleLabor Law § 220Fringe BenefitsPension ContributionsPublic Works ProjectsContractor ComplianceProfit-Sharing PlanJudicial ReviewAdministrative Deference
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor

Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. (B&C), a general contractor, sought to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) from enforcing state prevailing benefit supplement laws. This action stemmed from B&C's subcontractor, Shared Management Group, Ltd., allegedly failing to pay union-related benefit funds, leading the DOL to order the withholding of payments to B&C. B&C argued that New York Labor Law §§ 220 and 223, which impose liability on general contractors for subcontractor non-compliance with prevailing wage laws, are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court reviewed various precedents on ERISA preemption, including GE I and GE II, and concluded that New York Labor Law § 223 is fundamentally linked to § 220, which directly relates to ERISA plans. Therefore, the court found § 223 also preempted by ERISA, granting B&C's motion for summary judgment and denying the DOL's cross-motion.

ERISA preemptionLabor LawPrevailing Wage ActBenefit supplementsGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor defaultPublic works contractSummary judgmentFederal preemptionEmployee benefit plans
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 8,558 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