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. ADJ2155395
Regular
Feb 25, 2011

GEORGE CROUSHORN vs. THE MCINTYRE COMPANY, AMERICAN CASUALTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, rescinding the decision and returning the case to the trial level. The Board found that the in vitro fertilization expenses were not fully compensable as requested, only the costs related to the applicant's sperm extraction. Regarding modifications to the applicant's vacation home, the Board questioned their reasonableness as medical treatment, given that the primary residence had already been modified twice. The Board remanded the vacation home issue for further development of the record, specifically to determine if defendant made representations that led the applicant to detrimentally rely on them regarding modifications to a third property.

WCABIndustrial InjurySpine InjuryT-6 ParaplegiaIn Vitro FertilizationVacation Home ModificationsReasonably Required Medical TreatmentEquitable EstoppelSperm ExtractionMedical Treatment Utilization Schedule
References
11
Case No. No. 96 Civ. 8835(WCC)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1998

Ell v. S.E.T. Landscape Design, Inc.

Plaintiffs Bobbie J. Ell and Thomas McVeigh filed a state court action in Orange County, New York, alleging injuries from a negligently sprayed fertilizer by employees of S.E.T. Landscape Design, Inc., including Glenn Nixon. Nixon later impleaded LESCO, Inc., the fertilizer manufacturer. Plaintiffs then amended their complaint to directly sue LESCO. LESCO removed the action to federal court, claiming federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, asserting complete preemption by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Defendant Nixon, joined by plaintiffs and S.E.T., moved for remand. The court granted the motion, finding that FIFRA does not completely preempt state law and therefore, federal question jurisdiction was lacking. Additionally, the court noted that removal was improper due to the lack of unanimous consent from all defendants.

Pesticide PreemptionFederal Question JurisdictionRemandWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleComplete PreemptionFIFRAState Law ClaimsUnanimous Consent RuleRemoval JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Itskov v. New York Fertility Institute, Inc.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Dr. Kaleed Sultan, asserting claims of breach of contract and fraud. The plaintiff alleged the doctor failed to fulfill an agreement to perform embryo implantation services connected to a surrogate parenting contract, after having retrieved her embryos, claiming the procedure was illegal. Dr. Sultan sought to dismiss both causes of action for failure to state a claim. The court denied the dismissal of the breach of contract claim, determining the contract was not against public policy and valid allegations were made. However, the fraud claim was dismissed as it merely reiterated the contractual dispute without presenting independent fraud allegations.

Breach of ContractFraudMedical ServicesIn Vitro FertilizationSurrogate Parenting ContractPublic PolicyStatute of FraudsMotion to DismissCivil ProcedureContract Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bulkferts Inc. v. Salatin Inc.

The plaintiff, Bulkferts, Inc., sued Salatin and Franco Ferri, Inc., alleging a conspiracy to restrain trade and monopolize the fertilizer market under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment. The court, presided over by District Judge Robert L. Carter, denied summary judgment for the Sherman Act count (count one), finding factual questions regarding the independence of actors and the attempt to monopolize. However, counts two and three, alleging RICO violations, were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show that defendants were engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity related to obtaining an interest in or operating an enterprise. The court also discussed the Noerr-Pennington doctrine but deferred its application due to factual questions of intent.

Antitrust LawSherman ActRICO ActConspiracyMonopolizationSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissNoerr-Pennington DoctrineForeign RelationsPersonal Jurisdiction
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Indagro S.A. v. Bauche S.A.

Indagro S.A. initiated a maritime attachment action against Bauche S.A. to recover demurrage payments allegedly due under a fertilizer sale contract. Indagro claimed to have fulfilled its obligations, but Bauche failed to pay demurrage. Indagro obtained an ex parte Rule B Order, resulting in $804,219.90 of Bauche's funds being restrained. Bauche moved to vacate this order, arguing the contract was not maritime in nature and Indagro's claim was merely a contingent indemnity. The court, presided over by Judge Paul G. Gardephe, ruled that Indagro failed to demonstrate a valid prima facie maritime claim, asserting that the sales contract's primary objective was non-maritime, and the "demurrage" provision was likely a contingent indemnity not yet ripe. Consequently, Bauche's motion to vacate was granted, the Rule B Order was vacated, and the verified complaint was dismissed.

Maritime attachmentRule B OrderDemurrageContract disputeAdmiralty jurisdictionSeverable maritime obligationContingent indemnity claimEnglish lawVacatur of attachmentSale of goods
References
52
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01020 [235 AD3d 1124]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2025

Matter of Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc. v. Town of Moreau Planning Bd.

The case involves an appeal by Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc. against the Town of Moreau Planning Board, Raymond Apy, and Saratoga Biochar Solutions, LLC. The appeal challenged a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which sought to annul the Planning Board's negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and its approval of a site plan for a biosolids remediation and fertilizer processing facility. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the Planning Board failed to take a 'hard look' at the project's potential adverse impacts, particularly concerning hazardous air pollutant emissions. The court concluded that the Planning Board's unexplained deference to DEC permitting standards without a reasoned elaboration for its negative declaration was arbitrary and capricious, thus granting the petition and remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Environmental ImpactState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Planning Board DeterminationHazardous Air PollutantsBiosolids RemediationSite Plan ApprovalNegative Declaration RescissionArbitrary and CapriciousAppellate DivisionJudicial Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Foster Wheeler Corp.

This case concerns a dispute between the United States Government, through its Agency for International Development (AID), and Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company (MHT) over an allegedly erroneous payment. MHT, acting as a confirming bank, paid Cargo Export Corporation (CEC) based on documentation AID claimed did not comply with the terms of a Letter of Credit related to a fertilizer plant project in Bangladesh. AID sought to recover the reimbursed amount and penalties under the Foreign Assistance Act, alleging MHT should have known the documents were false. MHT moved for summary judgment, challenging AID's standing and the applicability of the Act. The court granted MHT's motion regarding the Letter of Credit and Letter of Commitment claims, concluding AID lacked standing or failed to state a claim. However, the court denied MHT's motion for summary judgment concerning the False Claims Act, ruling that confirming banks can be 'persons' under the Act and that a triable issue of fact exists regarding MHT's prudence.

Letter of Credit disputeConfirming bank liabilityFalse Claims Act litigationForeign Assistance ActSummary judgment motionsStanding doctrineContract interpretationInternational banking lawDocumentary credit fraudGovernment agency oversight
References
13
Showing 1-7 of 7 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