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

Dye v. McIntyre Floral Co.

This suit was brought by employees against McIntyre Floral Company, alleging a deficiency in wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The core issue revolves around whether the employees are exempt from the Act's provisions due to their employment in agriculture, specifically in handling "agricultural or horticultural commodities for market." The chancellor initially sustained a demurrer, agreeing that the complainants were exempt. The court examined the Act's definition of "agriculture," which includes the cultivation and harvesting of horticultural commodities and practices incidental to farming, such as preparation for market. The court concluded that the employees' work, involving the receipt, care, and preparation of nursery products for shipment, falls under the "preparation for market" clause of the agricultural exemption, affirming the initial judgment. This construction aligns with the understanding of agriculture's seasonal nature, which includes horticulture.

Fair Labor Standards ActAgricultural ExemptionHorticultural CommoditiesNursery BusinessWage DeficiencyInterstate CommercePreparation for MarketFarm Laborer ExemptionStatutory InterpretationDavidson County
References
3
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
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. 536000
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2024

Matter of Elhannon Wholesale Nursery, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor)

Elhannon Wholesale Nursery, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found the company liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for its H-2A agricultural workers from 2014 to 2016. The contributions included remuneration for housing and utilities provided to these workers. Elhannon argued for the retroactive application of a 2019 amendment to Labor Law § 564, which excluded H-2A workers from the definition of "employment," but the court found no clear legislative intent for retroactivity. The company also challenged the Board's authority to assess contributions for workers ineligible for benefits and disputed the valuation of housing and utility remuneration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that an employer's obligation to pay contributions is independent of employee eligibility for benefits and upholding the Commissioner's method for calculating remuneration.

Unemployment InsuranceH-2A WorkersAgricultural LaborRetroactive ApplicationStatutory InterpretationLabor LawPayroll TaxEmployer ContributionsRemuneration ValuationHousing Benefits
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agriculture Ins. Co., Inc. v. Ace Hardware Corp.

Plaintiff Agricultural Insurance Company, Inc., as assignee of injured worker Robert T. Treadway, Jr., moved for partial summary judgment on liability under N.Y. Labor Law § 240(1) against defendants Ace Hardware Corporation and Butler Construction Company. Treadway was severely injured when he fell from an elevated height at a construction site after the steel beam he was standing on collapsed. Although provided with a safety harness and line, these were attached to the very beam that failed, rendering them inadequate. The court granted the plaintiff's motion, concluding that the defendants violated § 240(1) by failing to provide proper protection and that this failure was the proximate cause of Treadway's injuries. The court rejected arguments regarding the admissibility of an accident report, a superceding cause (wind), and Treadway's contributory negligence.

N.Y. Labor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityConstruction AccidentElevated WorkSafety DevicesProximate CauseContributory NegligenceHearsay ExceptionParty Admission
References
31
Case No. M2001-00174-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2001

Terminix International Co. v. Department of Labor

This case concerns an appeal regarding the jurisdictional authority of the Tennessee Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (TOSHA), to conduct safety inspections and enforce regulations for pesticide applicators. Appellants Terminix International Company, L.P. and TruGreen, Inc., L.P., challenged TOSHA's jurisdiction, asserting preemption by federal laws like FIFRA and FOSH. The Chancery Court for Davidson County affirmed TOSHA's authority, noting that state agriculture regulations focus on pesticide labeling and applicator licensing, not employee workplace safety. The Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld this decision, concluding that Congress did not intend to fully preempt state regulation of pesticide use in the workplace, thus affirming TOSHA's jurisdiction and obligation to ensure worker health and safety from pesticide-related risks.

Pesticide RegulationOccupational Safety and HealthFederal PreemptionState JurisdictionPersonal Protective Equipment (PPE)TOSHA (Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Act)FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act)Workplace Safety InspectionsAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
26
Case No. 2015-06-1358
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2016

Watson, Reginald v. Labor Smart

Reginald Watson, an employee, sustained head and back injuries in a work-related fall on July 18, 2015, while working for Labor Smart. Labor Smart failed to timely provide medical care, leading Watson to seek unauthorized treatment. The court found Labor Smart violated workers' compensation law by not offering a panel of physicians and referred the matter for a civil penalty. Despite some medical uncertainty regarding the exact cause of headaches, the court credited Watson's and his fiancée's testimony, concluding he was likely to prove his inability to work since September 1, 2015, due to the accident. Consequently, the court ordered Labor Smart to provide temporary total disability benefits to Mr. Watson from September 2, 2015, until he is no longer eligible.

Temporary Total DisabilityExpedited HearingMedical Treatment DelayWorkers' Compensation LawCausation of InjuryPost-Traumatic HeadachesSpinal InjuryEmployer NegligenceCivil PenaltyTennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rochester Club v. New York State Labor Relations Board

The petitioner, an employer, was charged with unfair labor practices by the New York State Labor Relations Board. Despite a trial examiner's recommendation to dismiss the complaint, the Board found unfair labor practices and ordered the matter reopened for further hearings to determine employee reinstatement and back pay. The petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding to review this Board order, which the Board moved to dismiss as non-final. The court held that under New York Labor Law, the Board's order, granting no relief and requiring further evidence, is an interlocutory order not subject to immediate judicial review. The court distinguished this from federal practice, where similar orders may be considered final, due to differences in state and federal procedural acts. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that a final order from the Board was still pending.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticeNew York State Labor Relations BoardArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. 03-98-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1999

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms/Accord Agriculture, Inc. v. Accord Agriculture, Inc./Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms

Accord Agriculture, Inc. (Accord) initiated a lawsuit against the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), challenging the validity of rules established for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Accord contended that the TNRCC failed to meet the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) reasoned justification requirement and exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating these rules. The trial court invalidated the CAFO rules due to the lack of reasoned justification but dismissed Accord's claims regarding a 'takings' violation and the constitutionality of the Right to Farm Act. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the CAFO rules and the dismissal of the 'takings' claim. However, it reversed the dismissal of Accord's challenge to the Right to Farm Act, remanding that specific issue for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActReasoned JustificationConcentrated Animal Feeding OperationsEnvironmental RegulationWater QualityAir QualityDeclaratory JudgmentStandingTakings ClaimRight to Farm Act
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 8,525 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