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

In re Striley

This case addresses an employer's constitutional challenge to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law concerning payments to striking workers and the application of the 'experience rating' method (Labor Law, § 581). The employer questioned the constitutionality under both Federal and State Constitutions. The court referenced W. H. H. Chamberlin, Inc., v. Andrews, which previously affirmed the constitutionality of taking money from employers for a general fund to pay strikers, and extended this principle to the 'experience rating' method. The decision emphasized that the method of assessment is a legislative matter and found no unreasonable or arbitrary act or constitutional violation in the change from a percentage ratio to 'experience rating'. The court affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board.

Unemployment Insurance LawConstitutionalityExperience RatingStriking WorkersLabor LawLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer ContributionsBenefit Payments
References
3
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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1992

Camardo v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan

Plaintiff John A. Camardo, injured in 1983, sought disability pension benefits from the General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan after being declared a 'voluntary quit' by General Motors Corporation. The Plan denied his application for forms, leading to a lawsuit under ERISA. Magistrate Judge Heckman recommended denying the defendant's motions for dismissal and summary judgment and awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff. District Judge Arcara adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissed the defendant's objections for procedural non-compliance, and ordered the Plan Administrator to provide the plaintiff with the necessary application forms for disability pension benefits.

ERISADisability PensionSummary Judgment MotionLocal Rule ViolationReport and RecommendationAdministrative RemediesStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Quit ClauseCollective BargainingEmployee Benefits
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employee's Pension Plan

Plaintiff Gary Hamilton, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on June 26, 2014, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), alleging improper denial of pension benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel. He sought additional credited service for his tenure at non-foundry plants, contending that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should modify his pension calculation as if his entire service had been at a designated foundry location. The defendants, General Motors Corporation Hourly-Rate Employee’s Pension Plan and General Motors, LLC, argued that the Plan's terms unambiguously require actual employment in designated foundry classifications for enhanced benefits and that the MOU's purpose was solely to facilitate employee transfers, not to alter pension benefits. The Court, applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, found the defendants' interpretation of both the Plan and the MOU to be reasonable. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's claims in their entirety.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyEquitable EstoppelSummary JudgmentPlan AdministratorCredited ServiceFoundry JobsMemorandum of UnderstandingArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1992

PINE BARRENS v. Planning Bd.

This case addresses whether the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) mandates a cumulative impact statement for over 200 proposed development projects in the Central Pine Barrens region of Long Island. The Central Pine Barrens is a vital ecological area, serving as the sole natural source of drinking water for millions and harboring numerous endangered species, leading to various protective legislations. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's ruling, determining that a mandatory cumulative impact study under SEQRA is not applicable here because there is no overarching governmental 'plan' for development in the region, only general protective policies. The court emphasized that comprehensive planning for this area should be conducted by the Long Island Regional Planning Board as outlined in ECL article 55, rather than through individual SEQRA assessments. It also noted the significant delay in the Regional Planning Board's action, urging legislative intervention to address this pressing environmental concern.

Environmental LawSEQRACumulative ImpactPine BarrensSuffolk CountyLong IslandAquifer ProtectionLand Use PlanningState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning Board
References
6
Case No. CA 10-02164
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2011

SIEGL, SALLY v. NEW PLAN EXCEL REALTY TRUST, INC.

Sally Siegl sustained injuries after falling in a parking lot owned by New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. The fall was allegedly due to a depression in the parking lot caused by settlement of crushed stones used by AALCO Septic & Sewer, Inc., which had repaired a water main two months prior. New Plan brought a third-party action against AALCO for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court granted AALCO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the common-law indemnification claim, finding New Plan also negligent. The majority also affirmed the dismissal of the contribution claim, concluding AALCO did not owe an independent duty of care or launch a force of harm. A dissenting opinion argued that there was a question of fact regarding AALCO creating the dangerous condition, thus precluding summary judgment on the contribution claim.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewWater Main RepairParking LotHazardous Condition
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carollo v. Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Plan

This case concerns Calogero Carollo's action against the Cement and Concrete Workers District Council Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees under ERISA. Carollo alleged the Plan's pension benefit accrual formula violated the Act by unlawfully "backloading" benefits and having an invalid break-in-service provision, thereby failing to meet minimum accrual rates. Defendants moved to stay or for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred, but the court denied these motions, finding the claims timely. The court granted partial summary judgment to Carollo on his first claim, declaring certain Plan provisions invalid due to violations of ERISA's minimum accrual rates for post-Act service. However, his second claim regarding pre-Act service accrual was denied partial summary judgment due to unresolved factual disputes.

ERISAPension PlanBenefit AccrualFiduciary DutyBackloadingStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentPrimary JurisdictionBreak in ServicePlan Amendment
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 1999

Greenlawn CVS, Inc. v. Planning Board of the Town of Huntington

This case concerns an appeal regarding site-plan approval for a retail store in Greenlawn. Greenlawn CVS, Inc. sought to construct a 10,125 square-foot CVS pharmacy, but the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington approved only a 6,000 square-foot building, citing concerns about community character and compatibility. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, annulled the Planning Board's determination. This court affirmed that judgment, ruling that the Planning Board's findings were arbitrary and capricious and lacked substantial evidence. A dissenting opinion argued that the Planning Board had the authority to consider aesthetic impacts and community character under SEQRA, and its decision was supported by the record.

Site-plan approvalZoningLand useEnvironmental ImpactCommunity characterArbitrary and capriciousSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewRetail developmentPlanning Board
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,518 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