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. 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

Laflamme v. Carpenters Local 370 Pension Plan

Plaintiff Michael LaFlamme initiated a class action against the Carpenters Local #370 Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) concerning the plan's 'freezing rule' for benefit accrual after a 'break in service.' LaFlamme sought a judicial declaration that this rule contravenes ERISA's minimum accrual standards, along with a reformation of the pension plan and recalculation of benefits for all affected class members. The court, presided over by District Judge Hurd, evaluated the motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b), finding that the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were met. Consequently, the motion for class certification was granted, establishing a class comprised of all plan participants, active or retired, who experienced a service break resulting in frozen benefit accrual rates. The decision also outlined procedures for providing notice to the newly certified class members, while deferring detailed adjudication of defenses like statute of limitations and exhaustion of remedies to later dispositive motions.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass ActionBenefit AccrualFreezing RuleBreaks in ServiceClass CertificationRule 23(a)Rule 23(b)Federal Civil Procedure
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Schlumberger Ltd.

This case involves an action removed from state court, where plaintiffs William Martinez, Frank Ditta, and Lafayette Kirksey sued Schlumberger Limited and Schlumberger Technology Corporation. Plaintiffs' state-law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligence, and gross negligence, stemming from alleged misrepresentations about future early retirement benefits, were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Plaintiffs contended that Schlumberger falsely denied considering enhanced early retirement packages, leading them to retire before a new Voluntary Early Retirement Plan (VERP) was announced. The court construed the action as a breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA and adopted a version of the 'serious consideration' test to determine when an employer's duty to disclose plan changes arises. Finding that the VERP was not under 'serious consideration' until after the plaintiffs' retirement, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, including the breach of fiduciary duty and an unresolved claim for interest on profit sharing plans.

ERISAFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentEarly Retirement PlanMisrepresentationEmployee BenefitsSerious Consideration TestPreemptionFraudNegligence
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loucks v. Board of Education of Middle County School District No. 11

Margaret R. Loucks, a former librarian for the Middle County School District No. 11, filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). She claimed that the school district's early retirement incentive plan discriminated against her because employees who retired at age 55 received 100% health insurance benefits, while she, having retired at 58, received only 50%. Loucks contended that the plan, which based eligibility on age 55, arbitrarily discriminated. The U.S. District Court, presided over by Judge Joseph F. Bianco, examined cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court found the retirement incentive plan to be permissible under the ADEA's safe harbor provision, referencing Auerbach v. Board of Education, which upheld similar early retirement plans. The Court concluded that the plan was voluntary, offered for a reasonable period, and did not arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of age by providing the same benefits to all eligible participants at 55. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, the plaintiff's motion was denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEarly Retirement IncentiveADEASummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementSafe Harbor ProvisionHealth Insurance BenefitsEmployment LawFederal CourtDiscrimination Law
References
33
Case No. 15-24-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2024

Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction and the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction issued by the 353rd Judicial District of Travis County. The appellants, including Cecile Erwin Young (Executive Commissioner of HHSC), Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc., are challenging the lower court's decision. The appellees (Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company) had sought to enjoin the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) from proceeding with STAR & CHIP and STAR Kids managed care procurements. The core legal arguments revolve around whether HHSC's procurement processes violated Texas law, thereby rendering the intended contract awards unlawful ultra vires acts, and whether the appellees' claims are barred by sovereign immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by granting the injunction and denying the plea.

Appellate CourtTemporary InjunctionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsProcurement DisputeManaged Care ContractsMedicaidCHIPTexas Health and Human Services Commission
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 1989

In Re Volpe

This case addresses the objection by NCNB-Texas National Bank to the exemption claimed by Dr. and Mrs. Volpe (Debtors) for their qualified employee profit sharing plan and individual retirement accounts under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. NCNB argued that the relevant Texas Property Code (T.P.C. § 42.0021) was preempted by ERISA and that debtors could only exempt a single account. The court, after an extensive analysis of ERISA's preemption clause and Supreme Court precedents like Mackey, concluded that T.P.C. § 42.0021 is not preempted by ERISA, as its connection to ERISA plans is too remote to be considered regulatory. Furthermore, applying a liberal interpretation of Texas exemption laws, the court determined that a debtor's overall retirement plan, even if held in multiple accounts, is exempt. Therefore, NCNB's objection was overruled, and the debtors' accounts were deemed exempt.

Bankruptcy LawExemption ClaimERISA PreemptionTexas Property CodeRetirement BenefitsProfit Sharing PlanIndividual Retirement AccountsFederal Bankruptcy CodeState Exemption LawSpendthrift Trust
References
41
Case No. Index No. 159601/16 Appeal No. 15885 Case No. 2021-02096
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2022

Matter of Nespoli v. Board of Trustees of the N.Y. City Employees' Retirement Sys.

Petitioners, members of NYCERS and other New York City retirement systems, were initially placed in Tier 4 after being hired as uniformed sanitation workers post-April 1, 2012. In 2016, NYCERS reclassified them from the Tier 4 Sanitation 20-Year retirement plan (SA-20) to the revised Tier 3/Tier 6 Sanitation 22-Year retirement plan (SA-22), citing an error. The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' request to annul this determination. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this judgment, concluding that the reclassification was not an error of law, nor did it violate the New York State Constitution, as petitioners were never contractually entitled to SA-20 benefits. The court also rejected the argument for equitable estoppel, noting NYCERS' statutory mandate to correct administrative errors.

Retirement benefitsPublic employeesReclassificationNew York City Employees' Retirement SystemTier 4Tier 3/Tier 6Sanitation 20-Year retirement planSanitation 22-Year retirement planRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gill v. Bausch & Lomb Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I

Daniel E. Gill, Thomas C. McDermott, and Jay T. Holmes, retired Bausch & Lomb (B & L) executives and participants in the B & L Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I (SERP I), challenged the termination of their monthly benefits and conversion to lump sums following a change of control at B & L. The court found that B & L Human Resources personnel acted as unauthorized fiduciaries in 2007 by interpreting the plan and terminating benefits. The subsequent 2008 decision by the Compensation Committee was also found flawed due to structural conflicts of interest, procedural violations, and abdication of fiduciary responsibility. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the termination of benefits and lump-sum payments violated ERISA and vacated both decisions.

ERISA LitigationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentConflict of InterestPlan AdministrationBenefit DenialChange of ControlLump Sum PaymentsProcedural Violations
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robert Plan Corp.

Kenneth Kirschenbaum, the Chapter 7 Trustee for The Robert Plan Corporation and The Robert Plan of New York Corporation, sought court approval for fee awards for himself and his professionals for administering an ERISA plan. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) objected, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction to award fees from Plan assets and had specific objections to the reasonableness of the fees. The court affirmed its core jurisdiction over the Trustee's actions as Plan administrator and his professionals' compensation, regardless of whether payments came from Plan or estate assets, citing previous rulings. The court analyzed whether Bankruptcy Code §§ 326 and 330 conflicted with ERISA statutes concerning fiduciary compensation, concluding no substantive conflict existed and the Bankruptcy Code's specific compensation scheme governed. Ultimately, the court largely overruled DOL's objections and granted the fee applications for the Trustee, K & K, Witz, and Whitfield, deeming the requested amounts reasonable and compliant with the Bankruptcy Code. The awards are payable from the Plan's Pguy Account, with any shortfall covered by the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawERISAChapter 7 TrusteeFee ApplicationPlan AdministrationJurisdictionReasonable CompensationStatutory ConstructionDepartment of LaborFiduciary Duties
References
50
Case No. 03-14-00060-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2016

Eva Diane Trejo v. Board of Trustees of the Employees Retirement System of Texas and Fort Dearborn Life Insurance Company

Eva Diane Trejo appealed a district court judgment affirming an administrative order that denied her long-term disability benefits. Trejo, a former secretary, claimed total disability due to a back injury sustained in a 2002 work fall. Her claim, initially denied by Fort Dearborn Life Insurance Company, was upheld by the Employees Retirement System of Texas Board of Trustees due to a perceived lack of objective clinical findings. The appellate court affirmed, finding the Board acted reasonably in concluding that Trejo failed to provide competent certification of "Total Disability" established by objective medical evidence, particularly as she was employed when early medical records were generated. The court emphasized that under the Plan, she was "conclusively deemed not to be disabled" while employed and compensated.

Disability Income BenefitsLong-Term Disability ClaimObjective Medical EvidenceAdministrative AppealJudicial Review StandardSubstantial Evidence RuleEmployee Retirement SystemInsurance Coverage DenialHerniated DiskRadiculopathy
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 2,119 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