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

Waldbaum, Inc. v. United Farm Workers

Waldbaum, Inc., a supermarket chain, sought injunctive relief and damages against the United Farm Workers AFL-CIO (UFW) for picketing its stores. Waldbaum alleged unlawful purpose and illegal acts during the picketing. UFW contended that the picketing constituted a lawful product boycott aimed at persuading customers to refrain from purchasing grapes and lettuce from California growers involved in a labor dispute with UFW, and that such activity was protected. The court found that a labor dispute existed and that product picketing for a lawful labor objective is protected under Labor Law § 807 and the First Amendment. While denying a total injunction, the court granted injunctive relief against specific unlawful acts, including mass entry into stores, blocking parking lot entrances, and falsely chanting 'On Strike.' Other alleged misconduct, such as threats of violence and the use of certain slogans, was either not sufficiently proven or deemed protected speech. The court also enjoined the use of lit candles but allowed other symbolic expressions like effigies. The entry of judgment was reserved pending the completion of a trial on damages.

Product BoycottSecondary BoycottPicketingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefFirst AmendmentFree SpeechUnfair Labor PracticeUnion ActivityCalifornia Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA)
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Farm Workers National Union v. Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc.

Plaintiff United Farm Workers National Union (UFW) sued defendant Sloan’s Supermarkets, Inc., for misusing its Aztec Eagle certification mark, alleging violations of federal trademark and unfair competition laws. UFW sought a preliminary injunction, claiming irreparable harm to its consumer boycott of non-UFW lettuce and public deception. The court acknowledged instances of non-UFW lettuce being sold under the UFW mark but found them to be due to employee error, not deliberate malice. Sloan’s demonstrated good faith in addressing the issue. The court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that UFW did not show immediate, irreparable injury strong enough to justify such an extraordinary remedy, and that an injunction would cause considerable harm to Sloan's business reputation given its good faith efforts.

trademark infringementunfair competitionpreliminary injunctionconsumer boycottUFWAztec Eaglegood faithirreparable injuryjudicial discretionlabor dispute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Paddock v. Farms

A 16-year-old farmhand died in a tractor accident on his parents' dairy farm. His parents, the claimants, filed a claim for death benefits under their workers’ compensation policy. The farm's insurance carrier contested the claim, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §2 (4), which excludes minor children of farm employers unless an 'express contract of hire' exists. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled in favor of the claimants, finding an oral express contract of employment with specific responsibilities and definite compensation. The carrier argued the decision lacked substantial evidence, but the court affirmed, noting that a contract need not be in writing to be 'express' and that evidence supported the existence of such a contract.

Workers' CompensationFarm AccidentMinor EmployeeExpress Contract of HireOral ContractDeath BenefitsInsurance CoverageSubstantial EvidenceEmployment RelationshipDairy Farm
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06268
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2024

Quick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Plaintiff Gary Quick, injured in an employment-related accident while driving a Peterbilt tractor-trailer leased by his employer, Casa Builders, Inc., sought no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. after his employer was found not to carry workers' compensation insurance. State Farm denied the claim, asserting that workers' compensation was the primary source of recovery, even if through the Uninsured Employers' Fund. Quick challenged this, arguing he couldn't apply for workers' compensation. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to State Farm, finding Quick failed to pursue Uninsured Employers' Fund benefits first. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that workers' compensation, through the Uninsured Employers' Fund if the employer is uninsured, is primary to no-fault benefits for work-related injuries, thus upholding the dismissal of Quick's complaint.

Workers' CompensationNo-Fault InsurancePrimary JurisdictionUninsured Employers' FundSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00646
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2024

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Amtrust N. Am., Inc.

In this subrogation action, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as a no-fault insurer, sought to recover benefits paid to its subrogors who were also seeking workers' compensation benefits from Amtrust North America, Inc. The Supreme Court initially dismissed State Farm's unjust enrichment complaint, asserting the Workers' Compensation Board's primary jurisdiction over the coverage dispute. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order. The court held that the Workers' Compensation Board indeed has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and the causal relationship of medical expenses to the accident. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new determination after a resolution by the Workers' Compensation Board.

SubrogationUnjust EnrichmentNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewMedical ExpensesMotor Vehicle AccidentReimbursementRemittal
References
9
Case No. 2013-2706 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2016

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

This case, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., concerned an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The plaintiff, NYS Acupuncture, P.C., sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm, which had moved for summary judgment arguing full payment according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court initially granted State Farm's motion. On appeal, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. contended that the fee schedule reductions were improper. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the prior ruling, finding that State Farm adequately demonstrated it had fully compensated the plaintiff for acupuncture services based on the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule for services performed by chiropractors, referencing Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

Workers' Compensation Fee ScheduleNo-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesChiropractorsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeFee Schedule ReductionAssigned BenefitsMedical Billing
References
1
Case No. 2017-905 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2019

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

This case involves an appeal by BQE Acupuncture, P.C. against State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. after the Civil Court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment and denied BQE Acupuncture's cross-motion. BQE Acupuncture sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, but State Farm asserted that the amounts claimed exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the Civil Court's order. The court reiterated its prior holding that insurers may properly utilize the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors when determining reimbursement for licensed acupuncturists.

No-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeFee ReductionChiropractic ServicesAssigned BenefitsCivil Court Decision
References
2
Case No. 2015-1339 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

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

This case concerns an appeal by GBI Acupuncture, P.C. from a Civil Court order granting State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.'s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Term found that State Farm's denial of claim forms for the first four causes of action were untimely, thus reversing that portion of the lower court's decision. However, with respect to the fifth through eighth causes of action, the court affirmed State Farm's practice of using the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine payment for licensed acupuncturists. The order was therefore modified by denying summary judgment for the first four causes of action, and otherwise affirmed. The case cites previous rulings on timely verification requests and the application of workers' compensation fee schedules.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentTimely denialVerification requestsFee scheduleAcupuncture servicesChiropractorsWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewCivil Court order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This case concerns a dispute between insurance carriers following a workers' compensation claim. Douglas K. Ellsmore was injured while unloading a hospital bed when Shirley S. Miller, insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, backed her car into him. Ellsmore's employer's workers' compensation carrier, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, paid over $65,000 in benefits and then sought reimbursement from State Farm via a loss transfer claim and demanded arbitration under Insurance Law § 5105. State Farm initiated a special proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, arguing that Aetna's claim lacked legal basis. Special Term denied the stay, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The court clarified that the "for hire" provision in Insurance Law § 5105 modifies "vehicle," limiting its application to vehicles hired for transporting people (like taxis) or livery vehicles for property, and does not extend to commercial deliveries by an owner's vehicle. Consequently, Aetna was not entitled to recover compensation payments under this statute.

Insurance LawWorkers' CompensationAutomobile InsuranceLoss Transfer ClaimArbitration StayStatutory Interpretation"For Hire" ClauseCommercial DeliveryVehicle InsuranceFirst-Party Payments
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03584
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2018

Matter of Smith v. Park

Alex K. Smith, a 14-year-old, died in a skid steer accident at Park Family Farm. His mother, Vicky S.T. Smith, as administrator, filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, finding the decedent an illegally employed minor. The claimant challenged this, arguing the employer was uninsured. The Workers' Compensation Board confirmed coverage by the State Insurance Fund and increased the death benefit award to $100,000 under double indemnity provisions, with Park Family Farm solely responsible for the increased amount due to illegal employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that a change in partnership composition did not invalidate the insurance policy.

Illegal EmploymentMinor Employee DeathWorkers' Compensation Death BenefitsInsurance Policy ValidityPartnership ChangeEmployer LiabilityDouble IndemnityAppellate ReviewFarm AccidentSkid Steer Accident
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 22,676 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