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. 05-cv-0200
Regular Panel Decision

Virga v. Big Apple Construction & Restoration Inc.

The plaintiffs, multi-employer labor-management trust funds, sued defendants Big Apple Builders, Inc. and Kang Yeon Lee for delinquent fringe benefits, dues checkoffs, and PAC contributions, totaling over $800,000. The defendants defaulted by failing to respond to interrogatories and a notice to admit. Judge McMahon initially granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs but denied imputed audit costs. Upon reconsideration, the judge reversed the decision on audit costs, finding them appropriate under the collective bargaining agreement's "other legal or equitable relief" clause, despite a prior ruling in Santa Fe Construction.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentReconsideration MotionAudit CostsPersonal LiabilityMulti-employer planFringe Benefits
References
22
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. CA4-90-676-A
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 1991

Burlington Northern Railroad v. Office of Inspector General

The case involves William J. Doyle III, Inspector General of the Railroad Retirement Board, seeking to enforce a subpoena against Burlington Northern Railroad Company for an audit. Burlington resisted, arguing Doyle lacked statutory authority for such an audit, which they characterized as a "program operating responsibility" belonging to the Railroad Retirement Board and Internal Revenue Service, not an oversight function of the Inspector General. The court examined the legislative history of the Inspector General Act of 1978 and concluded that Congress intended the Inspector General to have an oversight role, not to conduct regulatory audits integral to agency programs. The court found Doyle's initial explanations of the audit's regulatory nature credible, while his later "spot check" justifications were not. Consequently, the court denied the enforcement of the subpoena, ruling that Doyle lacked the statutory authority to conduct the planned regulatory audit.

Inspector General ActSubpoena EnforcementStatutory AuthorityRegulatory AuditOversight AuthorityRailroad Retirement BoardInternal Revenue ServiceCongressional IntentProgram Operating ResponsibilitiesAdministrative Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund v. Steel & Duct Fabrication, Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of several multiemployer benefit plans, initiated an action against Steel & Duct Fabrication, Inc. and James Mikhail under ERISA. They sought an audit of the defendants' financial records and payment of overdue fringe benefit contributions for the period of January 1, 2008, through April 30, 2014. Defendants contested the court's jurisdiction, arguing the dispute was subject to arbitration, and claimed the collective bargaining agreements limited the plaintiffs to a single audit for the specified period. The court determined it had jurisdiction, as the plaintiffs were third-party beneficiaries not bound by arbitration clauses. The court also ruled that the relevant agreements did not restrict the number of audits the trustees could conduct. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for a second directed audit.

ERISAPension FundsBenefit PlansMultiemployer PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementsTrust AgreementsAudit RightsDelinquent ContributionsFiduciary DutiesDiscovery
References
29
Case No. 03-01-00215-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2002

Patient Advocates of Texas and Allen J. Meril, M.D. v. Texas Workers Compensation Commission Leonard Riley, Executive Director And State of Texas

This case concerns a challenge brought by Patient Advocates of Texas and Allen J. Meril, M.D., against the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and the State of Texas. The challenge targeted the validity and enforcement of Commission rules, specifically the Medical Fee Guideline (Rule 134.201) and the Dispute and Audit Rules (Rules 133.300-.305). Advocates contended that the Guideline was procedurally and substantively invalid, and that the Dispute and Audit Rules improperly delegated auditing powers to private insurance carriers and imposed an unlawful statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed the Guideline's fee caps and the one-year statute of limitations but reversed the trial court's judgment, declaring the delegation of auditing powers to private insurance carriers invalid.

Workers' Compensation ActMedical Fee GuidelinesAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Rule-making proceduresDelegation of authorityPrivate insurance carriersAuditing powersStatute of limitationsConstitutional challengeDue process
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 1995

P.A. Building Co. v. City of New York

The plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion and sought to sever a second cause of action, which was denied. Defendants, the City of New York and Kislak, cross-moved to dismiss the complaint and compel the plaintiff to submit to an audit, which was granted. The core of the dispute involved the City designating Kislak to audit lease expenses, which the plaintiff contested as an illegal contingency fee arrangement. The court ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the contract between the City and Kislak, finding no direct harm or third-party beneficiary status. Furthermore, the plaintiff's refusal to submit to the audit impaired the City's ability to protest overcharges, thereby relieving the City of its obligation for additional rent escalation payments. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, the order for an audit, and the dismissal of the tortious interference claim against Kislak.

Summary JudgmentContract DisputeAuditingAgency AgreementStanding (Law)Tortious InterferenceLease AgreementBreach of ContractContingency FeeDismissal of Complaint
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Krauskopf v. Perales

The City of New York initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge an audit conducted by the State Department of Social Services (SDSS). The audit alleged that the City had failed to comply with record-keeping requirements under 18 NYCRR 310.1 (g) for 'State-charge' recipients, leading to an asserted overpayment of $18,266,412. The court determined that the State's audit was defective on three grounds: misinterpreting Social Services Law § 117 (1) regarding nonresident status, misconstruing 18 NYCRR 310.1 (g) by disregarding applicant interviews for verification, and imposing an arbitrary standard of proof on the City. These errors were found to defeat the purpose of Social Services Law § 62 (3). Consequently, the petition was granted, the audit and the State's recoupment decision were declared void, and the City was entitled to reimbursement for the disputed amount.

State-charge statusPublic assistanceHome ReliefAid to Dependent ChildrenAudit challengeReimbursement disputeSocial Services Law interpretationAdministrative LawBurden of proofArbitrary and capricious determination
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04594 [207 AD3d 905]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2022

Matter of Blamah v. New York Off. of the State Comptroller

Petitioner Tenneh Blamah, a chief examiner, was terminated by the New York Office of the State Comptroller for misconduct during two audits. The charges included insubordination, violating internal fraud protocols, lying, and unethical conduct during an audit of the Croton-on-Hudson Volunteer Fire Department. Additional charges stemmed from failing to report a subordinate's conflict of interest and improperly certifying an audit of the Lakeland Central School District. Petitioner challenged the termination, but the Appellate Division, Third Department, found substantial evidence to support the misconduct findings. The court affirmed the termination, deeming the penalty not disproportionate given the gravity of the offenses.

MisconductInsubordinationConflict of InterestFraud ProtocolsEthical ViolationsPublic Employee DisciplineCivil Service LawArticle 78 ProceedingSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suburban Restoration Co. v. Office of the State Comptroller

The State Insurance Fund (SIF) obtained a default judgment against a contractor (petitioner) for unpaid workers' compensation premiums. When the judgment remained unpaid, the State Comptroller (respondent) exercised its common-law right to offset the debt by withholding payments due to the petitioner from other state agencies. The petitioner challenged this action, arguing that SIF is not a state agency for offset purposes and that the Comptroller should audit the original default judgment. The court affirmed the Comptroller's authority, ruling that SIF is indeed a state agency. Furthermore, the court determined that the Comptroller is not required to audit a judgment in the state's favor before applying an offset, thus dismissing the petitioner's request for an audit.

Offset AuthorityState Agency DeterminationDefault Judgment EnforcementWorkers' Compensation PremiumsComptroller's DiscretionAudit ObligationCollateral Attack DoctrineAppellate ReviewGovernment Debt CollectionState Insurance Fund Status
References
12
Case No. 03-07-00682-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2008

Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Zenith Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company v. Vista Community Medical Center, LLP, D/B/A Vista Medical Center Hospital Christus Health Gulf Coast And the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

This appeal concerns a challenge to the validity and interpretation of Rule 134.401, promulgated by the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation, which governs hospital fee reimbursement for inpatient services to injured workers. The trial court had ruled that the 'Stop-Loss Exception' applied solely if audited charges exceeded $40,000 and deemed the 2005 Staff Report an invalid rule. The appellate court reversed, holding that eligibility for stop-loss reimbursement requires proof of both audited charges exceeding $40,000 and unusually costly and extensive services. The court also reversed the declaration that the 2005 Staff Report was an invalid rule, affirming the trial court's stance on auditing implantable charges.

Workers' Compensation LawAdministrative Rule ChallengeHospital Fee ReimbursementStop-Loss ExceptionRule InterpretationMedical Cost ControlDeclaratory Judgment ActionAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeTexas Government Code
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 149 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