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
Feb 22, 1984

Barnhardt v. Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds

The plaintiff, injured in May 1978 during maintenance work, was denied workers' compensation due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Subsequently, he sought reimbursement for medical expenses from the Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds (Benefit Funds) through a union insurance policy. Continental Assurance Company (Continental), Benefit Funds' insurer, rejected the claim, citing an employment-related injury exclusion in the policy. The plaintiff then initiated an action against Benefit Funds, which in turn filed a third-party action against Continental seeking indemnification. Continental's motion for summary judgment, asserting the exclusion, was denied by the County Court. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that the exclusionary language was ambiguous and applied only in cases where a clear employer-employee relationship existed, a fact still to be determined.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation ExclusionSummary Judgment MotionContractual AmbiguityGroup Health InsuranceMedical Expense ReimbursementThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.

The Trustees of the Local 852 General Warehouseman’s Union Pension Fund sued the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) seeking reimbursement for pension benefits paid to retirees of two closed warehouses. The Fund argued for recovery based on equitable estoppel, asserting detrimental reliance on an initial PBGC determination that it would guarantee these benefits. The PBGC moved for summary judgment, contending that estoppel against a federal agency requires a showing of affirmative misconduct or manifest injustice. The Court found no evidence of affirmative misconduct by the PBGC and concluded that its change in determination, made to conform with Congressional intent, did not constitute manifest injustice. Consequently, the Court granted the PBGC's motion for summary judgment, ruling that equitable estoppel was inapplicable.

Equitable EstoppelFederal Agency EstoppelSummary JudgmentERISAPension BenefitsMulti-employer PlanPension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC)Affirmative MisconductManifest InjusticeDetrimental Reliance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund of the Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the Electrical Industry

Plaintiff Claude Jeffries, a retired electrician, sued the Pension Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry under ERISA, seeking to include pension credits from 1969-1975 in his current benefits. He alleged the Plan should have declared a partial termination during a 1975-1979 New York recession, which would have vested his benefits. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of standing and statute of limitations, while plaintiff moved for class certification for similarly affected members. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for benefits, finding it timely, but granted dismissal for the breach of fiduciary duty claim as time-barred. The plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied due to insufficient evidence for numerosity, with leave to refile after discovery.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass CertificationMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFiduciary DutyPartial TerminationBenefit ForfeitureUnemploymentLabor Union
References
15
Case No. ADJ9409541
Regular
Aug 23, 2019

LUIS MEDINA BERNAL (Deceased), PATRICIA SOLANO VASQUEZ, MISAEL MEDINA SOLANO, LUCIA MEDINA SOLANO, XIMENA MEDINA SOLANO, I SAI MEDINA SOLANO, LUIS EMANUEL MEDINA SOLANO vs. REBECCA BAUTISTA dba REMAC TIRE SERVICES, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves a fatal industrial injury to Luis Medina Bernal, a tire changer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to clarify death benefit payment terms. While the WCJ correctly found petitioning applicants failed to prove partial dependency, the WCAB amended the decision. The death benefit for the widow, Patricia Solano Vasquez, is to be paid bi-weekly at $297.29 until the $250,000 total is exhausted. The attorney's fee was recalculated to $34,042.54, representing 15% of the death benefit's present value.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFatal Industrial InjuryPartial DependencyCredibility DeterminationsNet Financial BenefitDeath BenefitPresent ValueAttorney's Fee
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Miceli

The claimant, a former software engineer for IBM, sought extended unemployment insurance benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) after her initial benefits were exhausted. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision and denied her application, ruling she was ineligible. Eligibility for TEUC-A benefits requires that airline-related employment ended due to specific events like reductions in service caused by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, airport closures, or the military conflict with Iraq. The court found no basis to disturb the Board’s decision, as the claimant failed to demonstrate that her layoff due to 'lack of work' was directly attributable to any of the qualifying airline-related events specified in TEUC-A. The court also noted that certain documents offered by the claimant to support her assertion were outside the administrative record. Accordingly, the decision of the Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended Unemployment CompensationTEUC-AAirline-related WorkersSoftware EngineerLayoffSeptember 11 AttacksIraq WarEligibility CriteriaAdministrative Law Judge
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 1988

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp.

David H. Miller and William W. Shaffer ("Miller and Shaffer") moved to intervene individually and as representatives of participants in the Jones & Laughlin Retirement Plan in an action filed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) against LTV Corporation and LTV Steel Company ("LTV"). LTV did not object to individual intervention but opposed class action intervention, arguing it would delay the PBGC action. The court granted the motion, allowing Miller and Shaffer to intervene both individually and as class representatives. The decision emphasized that Miller and Shaffer met the minimal burden of showing that PBGC's representation might be inadequate, as their interests, seeking full plan benefits, could diverge from PBGC's role as plan administrator. This opinion allows the class action to proceed under Rule 23(e), preventing dismissal or compromise without court approval.

InterventionERISAPension PlansBankruptcyClass ActionRule 24Rule 23(e)Adequate RepresentationPlan TerminationRestoration
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04070
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Cisnero v. Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund

Claimant Jeffrey Cisnero, an independent livery driver, sustained injuries when he was shot during a dispatch. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was initially disallowed by a WCLJ but later reversed by the Workers' Compensation Board, finding coverage through the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF). The carrier appealed, arguing misinterpretation of the relevant statutes, particularly Executive Law § 160-ddd (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Cisnero's injuries arose out of and in the course of providing covered services as an independent livery driver dispatched by an ILDBF member. The court found that the vehicle's attenuated affiliation with the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. did not alter ILDBF's liability.

Workers' CompensationLivery DriverIndependent ContractorBenefit FundAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 1980

Vinson v. Berkowitz

Plaintiff Willie Vinson sustained serious injuries, including an amputation, after being struck by a motor vehicle during employment and began receiving workers' compensation benefits from Hartford Insurance Company. Vinson filed a lawsuit against the tort-feasor defendants, Berkowitz, seeking to settle his claim for $25,000 (netting $16,294.54) while preserving his full workers' compensation benefits. Although Hartford Insurance Company had no lien due to recent legislative amendments, it sought to suspend future benefits until the settlement amount was exhausted. The Special Term initially ruled in favor of Vinson, denying Hartford's offset claim. However, the appellate court modified the decision, directing that the suspension of Vinson's workers' compensation benefits would only occur after the aggregate of such benefits reached $50,000, and then only until the $16,294.54 settlement amount was exhausted, otherwise affirming the original order.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsNo-Fault Automobile InsuranceTort-feasor SettlementBasic Economic LossLien SuspensionInsurance Carrier OffsetMotor Vehicle AccidentPersonal Injury ClaimAppellate DivisionStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shamoun v. Board of Trustees

The applicant, Isaac Shamoun, sued the Board of Trustees, Liquor Salesmen’s Union Local 2 Pension Fund, seeking retirement benefits under an ERISA-governed defined benefit plan. Shamoun, who continued working, alleged he was discriminatorily denied benefits despite an alleged 1989 plan amendment precluding such payments while other salesmen received them. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for Shamoun's failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing a formal application. The court converted the motion to one for summary judgment, rejecting Shamoun's argument that filing an application would have been futile. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, without prejudice, citing the plaintiff's clear failure to exhaust the required administrative procedures of the plan.

ERISAPension BenefitsRetirement PlanExhaustion of RemediesSummary JudgmentFutility ExceptionDefined Benefit PlanFiduciary DutyDiscriminationUnion Pension Fund
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davidson v. LaGrange Fire District

A firefighter (petitioner) injured in the line of duty received salary benefits but was denied medical benefits for therapy and knee surgery by her employer and its insurer. The petitioner sought coverage under General Municipal Law § 207-a directly from the LaGrange Fire District and Board of Fire Commissioners. Despite being advised to pursue the matter with the Workers’ Compensation Board, the petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel her employers to make a final determination on her medical benefit request. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the WCB. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that a municipal employer's obligations under General Municipal Law § 207-a are distinct from workers' compensation remedies and do not require prior exhaustion of WCB proceedings.

Firefighter injuryMedical benefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-aCPLR Article 78MandamusExhaustion of administrative remediesWorkers' Compensation BoardMunicipal employer liabilityKnee surgeryPhysical therapy
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 6,871 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