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

Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Consolidated Welfare Fund

Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (Empire) sued the Consolidated Welfare Fund and other defendants for breach of contract, fraud, and RICO violations. The defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the state law claims were preempted by ERISA. The court analyzed whether the Fund qualified as an 'employee welfare benefit plan' (EWBP) under ERISA. Finding that the Fund, with its 'associate members' from diverse backgrounds and commercial solicitation, did not meet the criteria of an EWBP, the court concluded that ERISA preemption did not apply. Therefore, the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings was denied, allowing Empire's state law claims to proceed.

ERISA PreemptionEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanHealth Insurance FraudLabor Union MembershipAssociate MembersRule 12(c) MotionFederal Civil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationCommercial Insurance SchemesDistrict Court Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romney v. Lin

This opinion addresses an action to collect unpaid contributions owed by Goodee Fashions, Inc. to four union benefit funds, totaling $70,647.17. After an initial judgment against Goodee Fashions proved uncollectible, the plaintiff, representing the union benefit funds, sued Alan Lin, a principal shareholder, under New York Bus. Corp. Law § 630. This state law holds the ten largest shareholders jointly and severally liable for debts to employees, including benefit funds. Defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing preemption by ERISA and LMRA. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 630 is preempted by ERISA. Consequently, the claim for $70,647.17 was dismissed, except for a $598.27 portion related to the Sportswear Industry Trust Fund, which was deemed not an ERISA fund.

ERISA PreemptionLMRAShareholder LiabilityUnpaid ContributionsEmployee Benefit PlansCollective BargainingState Law PreemptionFederal JurisdictionCorporate DebtDismissal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2001

MacRo v. Independent Health Ass'n, Inc.

Plaintiffs Cheryl Macro and Kim Zastrow, insured under a group health contract with Independent Health through the Tonawanda City School District, initiated a class action in state court to challenge Independent Health's modification of infertility treatment coverage. Defendant Independent Health removed the case to federal court, asserting ERISA preemption. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that their claims fell under New York Insurance Law, which is exempt from ERISA preemption by the saving clause, and that their health plan qualified as a 'governmental plan' also exempt from ERISA. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion, concluding that the claims were indeed saved from ERISA preemption and that the plan was exempt, thus rendering federal subject matter jurisdiction absent. The court accordingly remanded the case back to New York State Supreme Court.

Infertility CoverageHealth Insurance DisputesERISA PreemptionSaving ClauseGovernmental PlansRemoval to Federal CourtSubject Matter JurisdictionNew York Insurance LawClass Action LitigationEmployee Benefits Plan
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. Cuomo

Plaintiffs, an association of home care providers and five licensed home care services agencies, challenged the New York Public Health Law § 3614-c (Wage Parity Law), alleging preemption by NLRA and ERISA, and violations of Equal Protection and Due Process. The Court dismissed claims against Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and all claims related to NLRA preemption, Equal Protection, and Due Process. However, the Court denied dismissal of the ERISA preemption claim against Commissioner Nirav R. Shah, finding subdivision 4 of the Wage Parity Law invalid as preempted by ERISA. Consequently, subdivision 4 was severed, and Commissioner Shah was permanently enjoined from enforcing it, while the remainder of the Wage Parity Law was upheld.

Wage Parity LawERISA PreemptionNLRA PreemptionEqual ProtectionDue ProcessStandingSeverabilityHome Care ServicesMedicaidCollective Bargaining
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. United States (In Re Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc.)

This case addresses whether a New York Lien Law "trust fund" beneficiary’s claim to priority payment under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d) is preempted by ERISA. The applicant, The Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry and its Participating Funds (JIB), sought priority payment from funds held by the debtor, asserting a claim for unpaid benefits. The defendant, A-J Contracting, Inc. (A-J), challenged this, arguing ERISA preemption, specifically that the Lien Law provided an "alternative enforcement mechanism" forbidden by ERISA. The court reviewed federal preemption doctrine and ERISA's objectives, ultimately concluding that Section 71(2)(d) does not create such a mechanism as it confirms existing employer liability rather than shifting it. Therefore, the court found that ERISA does not preempt JIB's assertion of priority rights under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d).

ERISA preemptionLien Law trust fundpriority disputeunpaid employee benefitsbankruptcy estatedebtor liabilityconstruction subcontractsfederal supremacystatutory interpretationcollective bargaining agreement
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

This memorandum and order, issued by District Judge Edelstein, reviews and affirms the Independent Administrator's supplemental opinion concerning disciplinary charges brought against Dominic Senese, Joseph Talerico, and James Cozzo, arising from the United States' action against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The core issue addressed was the termination of Senese's health and welfare benefits. Senese's objections, citing ERISA preemption and limitations within the Consent Decree, were rejected by the court. The judge affirmed the Independent Administrator's authority to terminate such benefits, clarified the non-applicability of ERISA preemption to health and welfare plans in this context, and reiterated that the standard of review for the Administrator's decisions is "arbitrary or capricious." The order specifically directed IBT-affiliated entities, including Local 703, to cease making payments into health, welfare, or employee benefit plans on Senese's behalf and prohibited the disbursement of certain severance benefits.

Consent DecreeDisciplinary ProceedingsHealth and Welfare BenefitsPension BenefitsERISA PreemptionRICO StatuteLabor Union CorruptionInternational Brotherhood of TeamstersIndependent AdministratorJudicial Review Standard
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n Production Workers' Welfare Fund v. Aberdeen Blower & Sheet Metal Workers, Inc.

Trustees of a benefit fund sued a corporation and its officers, Levine and Ermann, to collect unpaid benefit fund contributions and seek injunctive relief. The action was brought under the Labor Management Relations Act and ERISA. Defendants Levine and Ermann moved to dismiss, arguing that the state law claim against them was preempted by ERISA. Plaintiffs contended that a specific ERISA exception for generally applicable criminal state laws applied, citing New York Labor Law § 198-c, which imposes civil liability on corporate officers for non-payment. The court analyzed whether New York Labor Law § 198-c constituted a 'generally applicable' criminal law under ERISA's preemption exception. It concluded that laws specifically targeting employee benefit plans are not 'generally applicable' and are therefore superseded by ERISA. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Levine and Ermann.

ERISA preemptionLabor Management Relations ActEmployee Retirement Income Security ActState law preemptionBenefit fund contributionsCorporate officer liabilityMotion to dismissCriminal law exceptionGenerally applicable lawUnpaid contributions
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2009

Gabel v. Richards Spears Kibbe & Orbe, LLP

Lauren Gabel, a former Director of Finance and Administration at Richards, Kibbe & Orbe (RSKO), sued the firm and its partners after being fired, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law, unlawful discharge related to pension rights (29 U.S.C. § 1140), and various state law claims including breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing several claims were time-barred or preempted. The court granted summary judgment, dismissing claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty due to statute of limitations, preemption by New York's Worker's Compensation Law, or preemption by ERISA. The ERISA § 510 claim for unlawful discharge to prevent pension vesting was also dismissed as time-barred. However, the court denied summary judgment on plaintiff's remaining claims for gender discrimination and retaliation under both federal and city law, finding sufficient disputed factual issues to warrant a trial. These claims (Counts 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7) will proceed to trial.

Employment LawGender DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsERISA PreemptionWorker's Compensation LawBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rand v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

Michael D. Rand (plaintiff) sued The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (defendant) over disability and overhead expense insurance policies. The case, initially filed in New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, was removed by the defendant to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, citing federal question jurisdiction under ERISA. Plaintiff moved to remand and for costs, while defendant moved to dismiss arguing ERISA preemption. The court analyzed whether Rand's disability policies constituted an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan, concluding they were for the sole benefit of Rand and his partner, not employees, and thus not governed by ERISA. Consequently, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, and denied the plaintiff's request for costs and attorney fees.

ERISADisability InsuranceRemoval JurisdictionRemandFederal QuestionWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleState Law PreemptionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureCosts and Attorney Fees
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Star Multi Care Services, Inc. v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield

This case involves Star Multi Care Services, Inc. (plaintiff) suing Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield (defendant) and Demetria Sarris and Van Sarris (Sarris defendants) for breach of contract regarding home health care services. Star initially filed the action in New York State Supreme Court, alleging Empire breached a contract to pay for services provided to Ms. Sarris under an ERISA plan. Empire removed the case to federal court, arguing ERISA preemption, and filed a motion to dismiss, while Star moved to remand to state court. The District Court denied Star's motion to remand, finding the claim was preempted by ERISA. The court granted Empire's motion to dismiss, concluding that Empire was not a proper defendant under ERISA and Star failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The remaining state law claims against the Sarris defendants were remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, as the federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

ERISA preemptionRemoval jurisdictionMotion to remandMotion to dismissRule of unanimitySubject matter jurisdictionBreach of contractHealth care benefitsEmployee welfare benefit planAdministrative remedies exhaustion
References
73
Showing 1-10 of 465 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