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. 05-01158
Regular Panel Decision

In Re ACE Elevator Co., Inc.

The Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Benefit Plans sought administrative priority for delinquent contributions from A.C.E. Elevator Co., Inc. (ACE), based on various sections of the Bankruptcy Code. The court denied administrative priority for most claims, including those under 11 U.S.C. §§ 503(b)(1)(A), 507(a)(1), and 1113(f), reasoning that the contributions were for prepetition work and that section 1113(f) does not create super-priority. However, the motion was partially granted under 11 U.S.C. § 1114(e) for Welfare Plan contributions, recognizing them as retiree benefits despite their prepetition nature, but requiring further information on the exact allocation to retirees. Claims for interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees were denied priority, as was ACE's request for costs. This decision underscores the careful interpretation of priority schemes within bankruptcy law.

Bankruptcy LawAdministrative PriorityEmployee BenefitsPension PlansWelfare PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementsDebtor-in-PossessionRetiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection ActPrepetition ClaimsPostpetition Claims
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romney v. Lin

This opinion addresses an action to collect unpaid contributions owed by Goodee Fashions, Inc. to four union benefit funds, totaling $70,647.17. After an initial judgment against Goodee Fashions proved uncollectible, the plaintiff, representing the union benefit funds, sued Alan Lin, a principal shareholder, under New York Bus. Corp. Law § 630. This state law holds the ten largest shareholders jointly and severally liable for debts to employees, including benefit funds. Defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing preemption by ERISA and LMRA. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 630 is preempted by ERISA. Consequently, the claim for $70,647.17 was dismissed, except for a $598.27 portion related to the Sportswear Industry Trust Fund, which was deemed not an ERISA fund.

ERISA PreemptionLMRAShareholder LiabilityUnpaid ContributionsEmployee Benefit PlansCollective BargainingState Law PreemptionFederal JurisdictionCorporate DebtDismissal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollard v. Knox County

This workers' compensation case addresses whether an employer's contribution to an employee's health insurance premium should be included in the 'average weekly wage' calculation for disability benefits. The chancery court initially ruled in favor of the employee, Juanita Johnson Pollard, stating that the employer's contribution of $31.62 per week for health benefits constituted an economic gain and thus part of her average weekly wage. However, the defendant-employer, Knox County, appealed this decision. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment, emphasizing that the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act's definition of 'average weekly wages' has not been amended to include fringe benefits despite numerous legislative changes since 1919. The Court concluded that broadening the definition to include such benefits is a legislative function, not a judicial one, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageFringe BenefitsHealth Insurance PremiumsStatutory InterpretationJudicial LegislationTennessee LawEmployer ContributionDisability BenefitsReversal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2006

Fortis Benefits v. Cantu

Vanessa Cantu suffered severe injuries in a car accident and sued multiple parties. Her medical insurer, Fortis Benefits, intervened, seeking subrogation for medical benefits paid under the policy. After Cantu settled with the defendants, Fortis pursued recovery from Cantu. Cantu argued that the equitable "made whole" doctrine barred Fortis's claim because her total losses exceeded the settlement amount plus the benefits Fortis paid. The trial court and court of appeals sided with Cantu. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the "made whole" doctrine does not override an insurer's clear contractual subrogation rights. The Court affirmed the dismissal of Fortis's claims against Ford due to a pretrial agreement.

Insurance SubrogationMade Whole DoctrineContractual SubrogationEquitable SubrogationERISATexas LawInsurance Policy InterpretationPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentSettlement Proceeds
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1979

In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Am-Lon Knit Goods Finishing Corp.

This proceeding involved an assignee for the benefit of creditors seeking judicial determination of priority among various creditor claims. The claims included those from the Federal Government, preferred wage claims, the New York State Tax Commission for income withholding taxes, the Industrial Commissioner for unemployment insurance contributions, the Director of Finance of the City of New York for various city taxes, and two insurance companies for workers' compensation insurance premiums. The court reconsidered an earlier decision and clarified that Labor Law § 574 is applicable and controlling in this context, establishing parity between New York State and City tax claims. Consequently, these tax claims were granted priority over the workers' compensation insurance premiums. The decision also distinguishes insolvency proceedings from decedent's estate cases, which are governed by SCPA 1811.

InsolvencyCreditor PriorityTax ClaimsUnemployment InsuranceWorkers' CompensationAssignee for Benefit of CreditorsState TaxesCity TaxesLabor LawSCPA
References
14
Case No. 2025-80-0048
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2025

MEENER, MUSSHUR v. v. FEDERAL EXPRESS HUB

Musshur Meener, an employee of Federal Express Hub, sought additional medical and temporary disability benefits after a work-related slip and fall injured his neck and shoulder. Federal Express denied the requests, contending the injury did not cause current symptoms and that they had offered appropriate work accommodations. The Court denied the benefits, concluding that Mr. Meener failed to provide medical evidence, specifically from a physician, that his work injury contributed more than 50% to his current need for medical treatment. Furthermore, the Court found him ineligible for temporary disability benefits because Federal Express had made a reasonable light-duty offer within his restrictions, and he did not demonstrate a loss of income. This Expedited Hearing Order resulted in the denial of all requested benefits for Mr. Meener.

Expedited HearingBenefits DeniedMedical Treatment DisputeTemporary Disability BenefitsCausation StandardMedical Evidence RequiredLight Duty WorkMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment RatingNeck Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1994

National Electrical Benefit Fund v. Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Co.

Plaintiffs, the National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF) and Local 41 Funds, initiated this action under ERISA to recover delinquent contributions from Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Company, Inc., Kenneth P. Heary, and Edwin W. Heary. The defendants asserted counterclaims and a third-party complaint, alleging RICO violations and other claims against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), National Electrical Contractor’s Association (NECA), Local 41, and individual union officers, claiming the collective bargaining agreements were invalid due to an alleged extortion scheme. Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman issued a Report and Recommendation, which District Judge Arcara reviewed de novo and adopted. The Court granted NEBF's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, dismissing the defendants' counterclaims. Motions to dismiss third-party claims against IBEW and NECA were granted, while Local 41's and other individual third-party defendants' dismissal motions were granted in part and denied in part, primarily concerning RICO allegations. The case was referred back for damages determination.

ERISARICOLMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentRacketeering ActivityExtortionHobbs ActFraud in the Inducement
References
18
Case No. 2017-06-0883
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Williams, Mark v. Yates Services

Mr. Mark Williams filed a claim for temporary disability benefits and medical benefits against his employer, Yates Services, following a workplace injury on February 23, 2015. Yates Services argued the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that Mr. Williams could not prove compensability. The Court found that while Mr. Williams timely filed his claim by sending a Request for Benefit Review Conference (RBC), he failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate a likelihood of success at a hearing on the merits. Specifically, he did not provide medical testimony or records to establish that his injury contributed more than fifty percent to his need for medical treatment. The Court therefore denied his request for temporary disability and medical benefits.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsStatute of LimitationsCompensabilityExpedited HearingBurden of ProofMedical CertaintyExpert Medical TestimonyPetition for Benefit Determination
References
3
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

Mic-Ron General Contractors, Inc. v. Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds

Petitioner Mic-Ron General Contractors, Inc. commenced an action against the Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Funds and the District Council, seeking a declaratory judgment to avoid binding arbitration concerning alleged delinquencies in fringe benefit contributions. The Trustees moved to dismiss and compel arbitration, which Mic-Ron opposed while also seeking a preliminary injunction to stay arbitration. The court concluded that the collective bargaining agreement between Mic-Ron and the District Council unambiguously required arbitration for such disputes. Consequently, the court granted the Trustees' motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, denying Mic-Ron's petition for declaratory judgment and its application for a preliminary injunction.

Collective BargainingArbitration ClauseEmployee BenefitsUnion DisputesFund ContributionsLabor DisputesFederal JurisdictionDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefContractual Obligation
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 11,445 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