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 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

In re the Claim of Clese

Claimant, an investment banker involved in funding airport capital improvements, was terminated after a decrease in bond demand post-9/11. She sought extended unemployment benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act (TEUC-A) for displaced airline-related workers. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied her claim, concluding her employment was not airline-related within the statute's definition. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the claimant's employer, a securities firm, did not qualify as a 'supplier' to an air carrier under TEUC-A because her services were primarily for airport authorities, with only an indirect benefit to air carriers.

Unemployment BenefitsTemporary Extended Unemployment CompensationTEUC-AAirline IndustryDisplaced WorkersEligibility CriteriaStatutory InterpretationSupplier DefinitionAirport FinancingAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2004

In re the Claim of Teitelbaum

This case concerns an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The claimant, an account executive for an employer whose products were sold at airport duty-free shops, was terminated after September 11, 2001, due to business decline. She applied for extended unemployment benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) for displaced airline-related workers. Although initially granted by an Administrative Law Judge, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, finding the employer was neither a supplier nor an upstream producer for an airline. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the connection between the employer's products and the airline industry was too tenuous to qualify the claimant for extended benefits under TEUC-A, and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended BenefitsTEUC-ADisplaced WorkersAirline IndustrySupplier DefinitionEligibilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
2
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sciame v. Airborne Express, Inc.

This case addresses the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a) concerning the maximum weekly benefits a claimant can receive for concurrent schedule and nonschedule awards. The court reaffirms its established precedent that these concurrent payments cannot exceed the statutory cap of $400 per week for 2004 injuries, irrespective of whether the nonschedule award stems from a permanent disability. This principle was also extended to include periodic payments for a schedule loss of use award and nonschedule award payments for temporary disability. The court concluded that the 2009 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 and 25 did not indicate legislative intent to overturn this longstanding cap. Consequently, the Board's decision, which held that the claimant's receipt of maximum weekly benefits from a nonschedule award precluded additional benefits from a schedule loss of use award, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit MaximumsConcurrent AwardsSchedule Loss of Use AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory CapJudicial Precedent AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Law Interpretation2009 Amendments AnalysisPermanent Disability Benefits
References
11
Case No. ADJ198279 (VNO 0510947) ADJ3495790 (VNO 0506075)
Regular
May 04, 2009

MICHAEL BONNER vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; permissibly self-insured, administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves a firefighter, Michael Bonner, seeking workers' compensation benefits. The defendant, City of Los Angeles, sought reconsideration of a prior award granting temporary disability (TD) benefits and a penalty for unreasonable delay. The Appeals Board denied the reconsideration, holding that Labor Code section 4850 salary continuation benefits for firefighters are distinct from temporary disability and do not count against the two-year TD limit under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). The Board affirmed the penalty, finding the City's attempt to conflate these benefits to limit TD payments unreasonable.

Labor Code section 4850Labor Code section 4656(c)(1)temporary disabilitysalary continuationInjury on Duty (IOD) timefirefighterCity of Los Angelescollective bargaining agreementWCJpetition for reconsideration
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2004

In re the Claim of Shaposhnik

The claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits and exhausted the regular 26 weeks. Subsequently, the claimant applied for extended benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC Act). The application was denied because it was filed after the December 28, 2003 eligibility deadline. The claimant argued that temporary employment caused the delay. The Administrative Law Judge modified the initial determination, and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed. The court affirmed the decision, stating that the claimant's regular benefits ended on January 11, 2004, and the application for extended benefits was filed after the deadline, making the denial proper.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended BenefitsEligibility DeadlineTemporary EmploymentUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardTEUC ActFederal FundingBenefit DenialJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
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
Showing 1-10 of 7,019 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