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
Feb 22, 1984

Barnhardt v. Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds

The plaintiff, injured in May 1978 during maintenance work, was denied workers' compensation due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Subsequently, he sought reimbursement for medical expenses from the Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds (Benefit Funds) through a union insurance policy. Continental Assurance Company (Continental), Benefit Funds' insurer, rejected the claim, citing an employment-related injury exclusion in the policy. The plaintiff then initiated an action against Benefit Funds, which in turn filed a third-party action against Continental seeking indemnification. Continental's motion for summary judgment, asserting the exclusion, was denied by the County Court. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that the exclusionary language was ambiguous and applied only in cases where a clear employer-employee relationship existed, a fact still to be determined.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation ExclusionSummary Judgment MotionContractual AmbiguityGroup Health InsuranceMedical Expense ReimbursementThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.

The Trustees of the Local 852 General Warehouseman’s Union Pension Fund sued the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) seeking reimbursement for pension benefits paid to retirees of two closed warehouses. The Fund argued for recovery based on equitable estoppel, asserting detrimental reliance on an initial PBGC determination that it would guarantee these benefits. The PBGC moved for summary judgment, contending that estoppel against a federal agency requires a showing of affirmative misconduct or manifest injustice. The Court found no evidence of affirmative misconduct by the PBGC and concluded that its change in determination, made to conform with Congressional intent, did not constitute manifest injustice. Consequently, the Court granted the PBGC's motion for summary judgment, ruling that equitable estoppel was inapplicable.

Equitable EstoppelFederal Agency EstoppelSummary JudgmentERISAPension BenefitsMulti-employer PlanPension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC)Affirmative MisconductManifest InjusticeDetrimental Reliance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund of the Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the Electrical Industry

Plaintiff Claude Jeffries, a retired electrician, sued the Pension Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry under ERISA, seeking to include pension credits from 1969-1975 in his current benefits. He alleged the Plan should have declared a partial termination during a 1975-1979 New York recession, which would have vested his benefits. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of standing and statute of limitations, while plaintiff moved for class certification for similarly affected members. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for benefits, finding it timely, but granted dismissal for the breach of fiduciary duty claim as time-barred. The plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied due to insufficient evidence for numerosity, with leave to refile after discovery.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass CertificationMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFiduciary DutyPartial TerminationBenefit ForfeitureUnemploymentLabor Union
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Burns v. Town of Colonie

Claimant, a police officer, suffered work-related injuries in 2000, leading to a permanent partial disability classification and workers’ compensation benefits. After settling a third-party negligence action in 2004, the employer's carrier accrued a credit, ceasing benefit payments to claimant. The claimant sought continued benefits, initially denied by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but later reversed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the carrier failed to prove that the claimant's reduced earning capacity was solely due to factors other than his disability, which was supported by his ongoing medical issues and testimony regarding work limitations.

Reduced Earnings BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityThird-Party Settlement CreditCarrier's Credit ExhaustionLabor Market AttachmentMedical ImpairmentAppellate AffirmationPolice Officer InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 29Disability Benefits
References
4
Case No. 11 CV 1471
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Industry International Pension Fund

The case involves multiple plaintiffs, participants in the Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund Pension Plan, who challenged an amendment to the plan. This amendment eliminated the ability for participants no longer in covered employment to "age into" certain early retirement benefits (Plan C and Plan G). Plaintiffs alleged this violated Section 204(g) of ERISA, the anti-cutback rule, which protects accrued benefits. The Court, applying the standard for judgment on the pleadings, found that the Plan C and Plan G benefits are early retirement or retirement-type subsidies and thus accrued benefits under ERISA. Relying on statutory text and precedent like *Ahng v. Allsteel, Inc.*, the Court ruled that the amendment impermissibly cut back accrued benefits for those employees who had met the years of service requirement and could continue to age into their pension benefits even after separation from employment. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motions for judgment on the pleadings and denied the defendants' motions.

ERISAPension PlanRetirement BenefitsAnti-cutback RuleEmployee BenefitsJudgment on the PleadingsDefined Benefit PlanEarly RetirementAccrued BenefitsPlan Amendment
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 1988

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp.

David H. Miller and William W. Shaffer ("Miller and Shaffer") moved to intervene individually and as representatives of participants in the Jones & Laughlin Retirement Plan in an action filed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) against LTV Corporation and LTV Steel Company ("LTV"). LTV did not object to individual intervention but opposed class action intervention, arguing it would delay the PBGC action. The court granted the motion, allowing Miller and Shaffer to intervene both individually and as class representatives. The decision emphasized that Miller and Shaffer met the minimal burden of showing that PBGC's representation might be inadequate, as their interests, seeking full plan benefits, could diverge from PBGC's role as plan administrator. This opinion allows the class action to proceed under Rule 23(e), preventing dismissal or compromise without court approval.

InterventionERISAPension PlansBankruptcyClass ActionRule 24Rule 23(e)Adequate RepresentationPlan TerminationRestoration
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04070
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Cisnero v. Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund

Claimant Jeffrey Cisnero, an independent livery driver, sustained injuries when he was shot during a dispatch. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was initially disallowed by a WCLJ but later reversed by the Workers' Compensation Board, finding coverage through the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF). The carrier appealed, arguing misinterpretation of the relevant statutes, particularly Executive Law § 160-ddd (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Cisnero's injuries arose out of and in the course of providing covered services as an independent livery driver dispatched by an ILDBF member. The court found that the vehicle's attenuated affiliation with the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. did not alter ILDBF's liability.

Workers' CompensationLivery DriverIndependent ContractorBenefit FundAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ6951586
Regular
Apr 08, 2015

MICHAEL MICHAELSON (Deceased) vs. JF SHEA, AIG CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order regarding a deceased worker's settlement. The Petitioner, Riverside County Department of Child Support Services, sought to satisfy a child support lien from the settlement allocated to dependents. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Labor Code §4700 dictates that only accrued and unpaid compensation is payable to dependents, and a child support lien under Labor Code §4903(e) attaches only to such benefits. As there were no accrued benefits owed to the deceased applicant, the child support lien could not be satisfied from the death benefit settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportRiverside County Department of Child Support ServicesState Bar NumbersWCAB Rule 10498SanctionsADJ6951586DeceasedJF Shea
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Witherbee v. Republic Steel Corp.

This is an appeal regarding a breach of a collective bargaining agreement concerning pension benefits. The plaintiff alleged entitlement to full pension benefits for over 30 years of service, which ended in 1973. Defendant informed plaintiff in 1973 that he only had a vested pension, not eligible for early retirement. Plaintiff's formal pension application was denied in 1979. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was time-barred as the cause of action accrued in 1973. Applying Federal law, the court determined that the cause of action accrued when the right to the pension accrued (1973), making the claim subject to a six-year Statute of Limitations. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed as time-barred, and the order was affirmed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementPension BenefitsStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentFederal Law ApplicationAccrual of Cause of ActionAppeal DecisionEmployer LiabilityEmployee Rights
References
8
Case No. No. 78
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Kayne Khalid Green

This case addresses whether unaccrued portions of a nonschedule workers' compensation award pass to beneficiaries of injured employees who die from causes unrelated to the work injury. The claimant, Kanye Khalid Green, son of the deceased employee Eric Watson, sought both accrued and unaccrued benefits after his father's death. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board initially awarded only the accrued, unpaid portion, denying the unaccrued benefits for the remaining cap weeks. The Appellate Division modified this, ruling that the claimant was entitled to the additional posthumous award. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order, clarifying that Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) does not provide for any unaccrued portion of a nonschedule award to remain payable following an injured employee's death. The Court emphasized the fundamental difference between schedule and nonschedule awards, noting that nonschedule awards are dependent on actual earnings and continuance of disability, making unaccrued portions speculative and not transferable posthumously. The Court reinstated the original Workers' Compensation Board decision, awarding only the portion accrued but unpaid at the time of death.

Workers' Compensation LawNonschedule AwardPosthumous BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityBeneficiary RightsStatutory InterpretationAppellate Division ReversalCourt of AppealsAccrued BenefitsUnaccrued Benefits
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 6,737 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