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. 01-cv-7920 (AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2006

Hirt v. Equitable Retirement Plan for Employees

This Second Supplementary Decision and Order for Judgment addresses three key issues: the effective date of Equitable's cash balance plan, the applicable statute of limitations, and the implementation of prior rulings. The court established January 18, 1993, as the effective date for the cash balance plan. Crucially, it ruled that the named plaintiffs' class action, filed on August 23, 2001, was time-barred under New York's six-year statute of limitations, as their cause of action accrued on January 18, 1993. However, the decision clarified that class members not directly party to this lawsuit are not bound by this limitation and retain their right to pursue claims. Finally, the plaintiffs' request for an ombudsman role in judgment implementation was denied.

ERISACash Balance PlanStatute of LimitationsClass ActionEmployee BenefitsPension PlanNotice RequirementsDe-grandfatheringFederal Discovery RuleRepudiation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1983

Equitable General Insurance Co. of Texas v. Yates

Thomas Yates was initially awarded workers' compensation for injuries while employed by Schepps Dairy. Equitable General Insurance Company of Texas, the carrier, obtained a summary judgment against Yates on grounds of untimely claim filing. Yates' subsequent motion for a new trial was conditionally granted upon payment of $500 in attorney's fees to opposing counsel. After Yates filed an uncontested affidavit of inability to pay, the trial court denied the motion for new trial. The court of appeals reversed, and this court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, ruling that while conditional grants of new trial are generally permissible, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion in the face of an uncontested affidavit of inability to pay the imposed monetary condition.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialAttorney's FeesConditional GrantAbuse of DiscretionAffidavit of Inability to PayTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureWorkers' CompensationEquitable ConsiderationsAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2019-04-0085
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2020

West, Amber v. The Balanced Canine Training Academy

Amber West, an employee of The Balanced Canine Training Academy (BCTA), sought workers' compensation benefits for a low-back injury sustained when two large dogs knocked her over a doghouse at work. She also requested psychiatric care and additional temporary disability benefits, alleging an inaccurate average weekly wage calculation. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Cookeville, presided over by Judge Robert Durham, held an expedited hearing. The Court found Ms. West likely to prove her low-back injury primarily arose out of and in the course of her employment, supported by medical evidence from neurosurgeon Joseph Jestus. However, her requests for psychiatric care were denied due to the lack of an order from an authorized physician. Furthermore, the Court denied her claim for additional temporary disability benefits, determining her average weekly wage based on the employer's account and documented evidence, which was lower than Ms. West claimed but still within the minimum compensation rate she had already received.

Workers' CompensationLow-Back InjurySciaticaPsychiatric CareAverage Weekly Wage DisputeExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsDog AttackMedical TreatmentCausation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Viviano v. Allard

This case involves a postjudgment application for equitable distribution of a class action settlement by a former wife against her former husband. The parties were divorced in 1984, with all known marital property having been distributed. The husband became a member of a class action lawsuit against Continental Can Company, where his employment was terminated prior to the divorce, leading to a substantial monetary settlement in 1990. The wife, learning of this settlement in 1992, filed for equitable distribution, arguing the proceeds constituted marital property. The Supreme Court ordered a hearing, finding that the settlement proceeds, if known at the time of divorce, would have been considered marital property. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing unusual circumstances where an asset was unknown to both parties at the time of the divorce, thereby justifying an opportunity for the wife to litigate the issue. The court held that benefits earned during the marriage, even if realized post-divorce, could be subject to equitable distribution.

Divorce LawEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyClass Action SettlementPostjudgment ReliefRes Judicata ExceptionAppellate ReviewUnforeseen AssetsDeferred CompensationFamily Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. Turner

After a 30-year marriage, the plaintiff wife initiated a divorce action in August 1991, seeking equitable distribution of marital property. The Supreme Court's initial distribution, which allocated approximately 62% of assets to the defendant and 38% to the plaintiff without explanation, was appealed by the plaintiff for equal division. The appellate court concurred, mandating equal division of net rental income and marital residence proceeds. Furthermore, recognizing the significant disparity in their retirement plans and the plaintiff's limited contribution period, the court ruled she was entitled to an equitable share of the defendant's pension. The plaintiff was also granted reimbursement for a $4,410 Workers' Compensation award confiscated by the defendant without proper offset proof. The judgment was modified and the matter remitted for property redistribution and consideration of counsel fees.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyDivorceWorkers' CompensationPension DivisionRental IncomeSpousal SupportMarital AssetsReimbursementCounsel Fees
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1989

Smith v. Smith

In this case, the Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially granted equitable distribution of State lottery winnings by allocating 85% to the defendant husband and 15% to the plaintiff wife. The parties were married in 1982, and the defendant won $13.5 million in the lottery in 1985 through a pool with co-workers. Although the wife regularly played the lottery, the husband rarely did. The court found the winnings to be marital property but awarded the wife only 15% based on the ticket being acquired solely through the husband's efforts. On appeal, the judgment was unanimously reversed, with the appellate court determining that a more equitable distribution would be an equal division of the lottery winnings, citing the parties' equal contributions to the marriage, their treatment of it as a partnership, and the fact that the winnings were their only significant asset.

Equitable DistributionLottery WinningsMarital PropertySpousal ContributionsDomestic Relations LawProperty DivisionAppellate ReviewMatrimonial AssetsFinancial AssetsDissolution of Marriage
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dash v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of US

Kenneth Dash, a black employee, sued Equitable Life Assurance Society and Equicor-Equitable HCA Corp. for racial discrimination in employment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging unfair job evaluations, denied promotion, and retaliatory discharge. Defendants moved for dismissal or summary judgment. The court, applying Patterson v. McLean Credit Union retroactively, dismissed claims of discriminatory job evaluations, discriminatory discharge, and retaliatory discharge under § 1981. However, the court denied the motion for summary judgment regarding the discriminatory denial of promotion claim, finding a question of fact as to whether the promotion to Team Leader constituted an opportunity for a "new and distinct" contractual relationship. The promotion claim will proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Promotion DenialRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissPatterson v. McLean Credit UnionNew and Distinct Relation
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.

Plaintiffs Ellen M. Sullivan and Mark Gross filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., alleging a vertical resale price maintenance scheme that violated antitrust laws and New York’s Consumer Protection Act. They claimed to have suffered economic injury due to inflated shoe prices. Defendant New Balance moved to dismiss the complaint. District Judge Sweet granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not demonstrate direct injury from purchasing from conspiring retailers. The court also dismissed the pendent state law claims without prejudice, granting plaintiffs leave to refile the complaint within 30 days, provided they limit the class to those who purchased from conspiring retailers.

AntitrustClass Action LawsuitResale Price MaintenanceSherman Act Section 1Clayton Act Section 4Consumer StandingMotion to DismissEconomic InjuryPrice Fixing SchemeIndirect Purchaser Standing
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re J.P. Morgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation

Plaintiffs alleged that the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan implemented by JPMorgan Chase violated ERISA by being age discriminatory and by failing to provide adequate notice of reduced benefit accruals after converting to a cash balance plan. Defendants moved to dismiss all remaining counts. The court denied the motion to dismiss for the age discrimination claim (Count I) and the notice claims (Counts IV-VI), interpreting ERISA's "rate of benefit accrual" to refer to the employee's retirement benefit, which is detrimentally affected for older workers in cash balance plans. The court found that the plan conversion could lead to a significant reduction in benefit accrual, requiring notice. Counts II and III, related to back-loading and forfeiture claims, were dismissed as they had been withdrawn by the plaintiffs.

ERISAAge DiscriminationCash Balance PlansDefined Benefit PlansDefined Contribution PlansBenefit AccrualStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissNotice RequirementsSummary Plan Description
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Marcus

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal challenging a trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets following a divorce between a plaintiff wife and defendant husband, Harold Marcus. The couple's long marriage began in 1948, with the wife contributing to household expenses while the husband completed medical school and later built a successful psychiatric practice and investments. Key disputes included the cut-off date for classifying marital property, the valuation date for assets (with the trial court using the Feb 1985 trial date), and the valuation of the husband's retirement plan trust and professional corporation. The court modified the plaintiff's award from the retirement plan and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new hearing to determine the value and equitable distribution of the husband's medical license and psychiatric practice.

Equitable distributionMarital assetsDivorce actionProfessional license valuationRetirement planProperty classificationValuation dateSpousal contributionsMarital residenceInvestment account
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 882 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