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

Medafrica Line, S.P.A. v. American West African Freight Conference

On March 20, 1984, Medafrica Line, S.P.A. (Medafrica) obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the American West African Freight Conference (AWAFC) from collecting a $9,118,301 penalty. As a condition, Medafrica posted a $150,000 bond issued by the Insurance Company of North America (INA). The injunction was contingent on the outcome of Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) proceedings and any subsequent arbitration. On February 18, 1986, the FMC dismissed Medafrica's administrative complaint with prejudice, and the time for appeal or arbitration expired. AWAFC subsequently moved to dissolve the injunction, dismiss the action, and seek judgment for $150,000 against INA on the bond, arguing they were wrongfully enjoined. The court found that AWAFC was indeed wrongfully enjoined and suffered damages because Medafrica became insolvent during the injunction's pendency, preventing AWAFC from collecting the penalty. Therefore, the court granted AWAFC's motions, dissolving the preliminary injunction, dismissing the action, and holding INA liable to AWAFC for $150,000 on the injunction bond.

Preliminary InjunctionInjunction BondWrongful InjunctionDamagesBankruptcySuretyFederal Maritime CommissionFed.R.Civ.P. 65(c)Fed.R.Civ.P. 65.1Collection
References
4
Case No. 91-CV-324; 92-CV-569
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Boening Bros.

The New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund sought to audit the payroll records of contributing employers Boening Brothers, Inc. and Charles Snyder Beverages, Inc. The employers refused, arguing they were not explicitly bound by audit provisions. The Court ruled that by contributing to the multiemployer plan under collective bargaining agreements, the employers implicitly assented to the Fund's governing documents, which include the right to audit. Citing precedents, the Court found the audit necessary to ensure proper contributions and plan integrity, upholding the Fund's right to audit all payroll records, including non-bargaining unit employees. However, the Court denied the Fund's request for attorney's fees, noting the lack of bad faith by the defendants and the unsettled nature of the legal issue at the time.

ERISAPension PlanMultiemployer PlanPayroll AuditCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementSummary JudgmentEmployer ContributionsPlan AdministrationFiduciary Duty
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1995

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Fratto Curbing Co.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund seeking a default judgment against Fratto Curbing Co., Inc. for delinquent pension fund contributions. Fratto failed to respond to the complaint after being served, leading to an entry of default by the Clerk of the Court. The court granted the Teamsters' motion for default judgment, finding Fratto liable for delinquent contributions, audit fees, interest, and attorney's fees. The decision also clarified the calculation of liquidated damages under ERISA, stating that the fund is entitled to the greater of double interest or the plan's liquidated damages, but not both, thus reducing the total award. The final judgment was entered against Fratto in the amount of $5,687.23, along with post-judgment interest.

ERISAPension ContributionsDefault JudgmentDelinquent PaymentsCollective BargainingEmployee BenefitsLiquidated Damages CalculationAttorney's FeesFederal CourtContractual Obligations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.H. Cobb Co. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

F.H. Cobb Co., a subsidiary of Super Food Services Inc., filed an action seeking a declaration of non-liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) concerning withdrawal liability to the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund. The MPPAA retroactively imposed liability for employers withdrawing on or after April 29, 1980. F.H. Cobb had ceased its primary wholesale distribution business by March 8, 1980, and retained a minimal workforce for only phase-out activities until May 16, 1980, with final pension contributions in May 1980. The court analyzed whether this constituted a 'complete withdrawal' prior to the MPPAA's effective date, concluding that the phase-out work did not negate the earlier cessation of covered operations. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring F.H. Cobb's non-liability under the MPPAA's withdrawal provisions.

MPPAAwithdrawal liabilitymultiemployer pension plancessation of operationssummary judgmentretroactive legislationpension contributionsphase-out workemployer obligationsplan funding
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund v. DOREN AVE. ASSOCIATES, INC.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund pursuing withdrawal liability payments from Doren Avenue Associates, Inc., Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC. The Fund alleged these defendants were under common control with or alter egos of Howard’s Express, Inc., a company previously obligated to the Fund. The court ruled that determining the defendants' "employer status" under the MPPAA was a matter for judicial decision, not arbitration. It denied the Fund's motion for summary judgment due to insufficient evidence on the common control and alter ego claims against Express and S&P. Conversely, the court granted the summary judgment motion for Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC, dismissing the complaint against them and terminating related arbitration proceedings, while granting a default judgment against Doren Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pension Withdrawal LiabilityMPPAAERISACommon Control DoctrineAlter Ego LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionFederal Court JurisdictionArbitration TerminationCorporate Ownership StructureEmployee Benefit Plans
References
27
Case No. ADJ9220592
Regular
Apr 29, 2014

LINDA MEISEL vs. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Kohl's Department Store's Petition for Removal. The Board found that the defendant's claim of due process violation was unpersuasive, as it is well-established that a judge must inquire into the adequacy of Compromise and Release agreements. The Board noted that the defendant had multiple opportunities to address the adequacy issues and that the upcoming trial on adequacy would provide a forum to present arguments. Finally, the Board ordered that the Pre-Trial Conference Statement be served on the applicant.

Compromise and ReleaseAdequacyPrimary Treating PhysicianPetition for RemovalDue ProcessPre-Trial Conference StatementWalk-throughOff CalendarSupplemental ReportReconsideration
References
7
Case No. ADJ7711093
Regular
Nov 10, 2014

Fernando Sosa vs. Source One Staffing, CIGA by its Servicing Facility Patriot Risk Services, For Ullico, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was unverified. The Board also granted removal on its own motion due to the lien claimant's repeated failure to appear at lien conferences and file proper objections. This conduct, along with filing an invalid petition, suggests potential bad faith and warrants a Commissioner's Conference to determine if sanctions should be imposed. The lien claim was ultimately dismissed by the WCJ for non-appearance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFernando SosaSource One StaffingCIGAUllicoPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantCalifornia Physician NetworkLLCDenise Mejia
References
2
Case No. ADJ16491268; ADJ15884384; ADJ16161110; ADJ16161057; ADJ16161093; ADJ15760386; ADJ18891808; ADJ19153721; ADJ16116250
Significant

Steve Hoddinott, et al. vs. Bravo Security Services, Inc.; National Liability Fire Ins. Co., administered by Biberk Business Insurance, et al.

The Appeals Board issued a notice to set a status conference to assist the parties in further discussing their stipulations with a designated hearing officer.

En BancRemovalStipulationSupplemental BriefingStatus ConferenceHearing OfficerDeputy CommissionerAppeals BoardAdjudication NumbersBravo Security Services
References
0
Case No. 03-CV-6187
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2008

Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists

Plaintiff Jewel Redhead sued defendant Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for unlawful discrimination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging termination from her teaching position due to being pregnant and unmarried. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of jurisdiction due to the 'ministerial exception' and that the termination was for violating church doctrine. The court initially denied summary judgment in 2006. Following a Second Circuit decision in Rweyemamu v. Cote, defendant renewed its summary judgment application. The court denied the renewed application, holding that while the ministerial exception prevents challenging the validity of the religious code, it does not prevent a secular employee like Redhead from proving the code was applied in a discriminatory manner based on sex and pregnancy. The court also denied the defendant's request for a certificate of appealability.

Employment DiscriminationReligious EmployersMinisterial ExceptionPregnancy Discrimination ActSummary Judgment DenialFirst Amendment RightsEstablishment ClauseFree Exercise ClausePretextual DiscriminationMcDonnell Douglas Test
References
11
Case No. ADJ6551691
Regular
Oct 05, 2010

LOUIS SPEIGHT vs. VULCAN MATERIALS CO., Permissibly Self-Insured, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA (Adjusting Agent)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order to potentially impose sanctions on four attorneys from Stockwell, Harris, Woolverton & Muehl and their firm. The attorneys responded by requesting reinstatement of a previous order and a hearing. The WCAB dismissed their request as an improperly filed petition for reconsideration or removal. A Commissioner's Conference is scheduled for the attorneys to appear and address the sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Granting RemovalRescinding OrderCommissioner's ConferenceAttorneys' FeesLiabilityAppeals Board Rules
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,130 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