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

O'Hare v. General Marine Transport Corp.

In this opinion, the District Court denied General Marine Transport Corporation's motion to amend a prior judgment that awarded damages to the Trustees of the New York Marine Towing and Transportation Industry Pension Fund and Insurance Fund. General Marine sought to amend the judgment based on the recent Supreme Court ruling in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, arguing for the application of a six-month limitations period. The court determined that DelCostello specifically applies to "hybrid 301/fair representation" claims and does not necessitate a departure from the previously applied six-year New York state statute of limitations for breach of contract actions, citing Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp. Therefore, the motion was denied, reaffirming the earlier decision.

Motion to Amend JudgmentStatute of LimitationsLabor LawBreach of ContractFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations ActHybrid 301/Fair Representation ClaimsPension FundInsurance Fund
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bryam Hills Central School District No. 1 v. State Insurance Fund

This case involves an appeal concerning the obligations of the State Insurance Fund under insurance policies. The Bryam Hills Central School District No. 1 sought a declaratory judgment to compel the State Insurance Fund to defend actions initiated by Dorothy G. Caruolo. The initial Supreme Court judgment had granted summary judgment to the school district, mandating the State Insurance Fund to provide a defense. The appellate court modified this judgment, affirming the State Insurance Fund's duty to defend the first Caruolo action due to sufficient general negligence allegations, thereby invoking policy coverage. However, the court reversed the requirement to defend two other actions seeking salary and benefits, as these claims were rooted in contract and expressly excluded by the policy, negating any duty to defend in those specific instances.

Insurance Policy ObligationsDuty to DefendDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract ExclusionWorkers' Compensation ImplicationsNegligence ClaimsInsurance Coverage DisputeSupreme Court Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cicatello v. Brewery Workers Pension Fund

This case addresses an action brought by employees and retired employees of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (Teamsters Fund) seeking to enjoin the merger of the Teamsters Fund with the Brewery Workers Pension Fund. Plaintiffs alleged multiple violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), including insufficient employee notification of the proposed merger, potential reduction in benefits, and failure to meet minimum funding standards. Chief Judge Curtin of the federal court determined that ERISA provisions cited by plaintiffs were either inapplicable to multiemployer plans at the time or had established mechanisms to address the concerns. The court also found the claim regarding the merger not being in the best interests of Teamsters Fund participants to be barred by res judicata due to prior state court decisions. Consequently, the court denied the request for preliminary injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Pension FundsFund MergerPreliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentRes JudicataMulti-employer PlansFiduciary DutyMinimum Funding StandardsTax Qualification
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Methodist Hospital v. State Insurance Fund

This case concerns the constitutionality of a $190 million transfer from the State Insurance Fund (SIF) to New York State's general fund, as directed by chapter 55 of the Laws of 1982. Plaintiffs, employers insured by the SIF, challenged the transfer on multiple state and federal constitutional grounds, including impairment of contractual obligations, deprivation of property without due process, unlawful taking, and improper legislative intrusion. The defendants included the SIF, its officials, the State Comptroller, and the State. Special Term and the Appellate Division both ruled the transfer constitutional. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the SIF is a State agency for which the State is responsible, not a mutual insurance pool, thereby negating any property or contractual interest of policyholders in its surplus. The Court also dismissed other constitutional challenges related to separation of powers, loan of state credit, creation of debt, and appropriation bills.

State Insurance FundConstitutional LawFund TransferState AgencyMutual InsuranceProperty RightsContract ImpairmentDue ProcessJust CompensationSeparation of Powers
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 182 v. New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund

Plaintiff Teamsters Local Union No. 182 (Local 182) filed an action against the New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund and the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (the Funds) under 29 U.S.C. § 185. Local 182 sought a declaration affirming the existence of valid collective bargaining agreements between April 1992 and March 1994, which mandated grievance and arbitration procedures, and an order compelling the Funds to arbitrate layoff-related grievances. The Union contended there was a long-standing oral agreement to adhere to applicable provisions of the National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA). The Funds moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the existence of any agreement with requisite definiteness. The court denied the summary judgment motion, affirming subject matter jurisdiction and finding that Local 182 presented genuine issues of material fact concerning the existence of a collective bargaining agreement.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor DisputeUnion RightsGrievance ProcedureArbitrationSeniority RightsLayoffsNational Master Freight AgreementPension Benefits
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1983

Methodist Hospital of Brooklyn v. State Insurance Fund

Kassal, J. dissents, arguing that chapters 55 and 404 of the Laws of 1982, mandating a $190 million transfer from the State Insurance Fund to the State's general fund, are unconstitutional. The judge contends this transfer constitutes a deprivation of property without due process and a taking of private property for public use without just compensation, violating the U.S. and New York State Constitutions. Additionally, it is argued that the legislation impairs contractual obligations, as the Fund is financed by private employer premiums meant for claims and investments, not general state revenue. The dissent highlights that this diversion will lead to higher premium rates and negatively impact the Fund's ability to offer discounts and pay dividends. Kassal, J. concludes that the legislation improperly diverts assets held in a fiduciary capacity, essentially a 'raid upon the Fund,' and cannot be justified by the State's role as a guarantor.

Constitutional LawDue ProcessTakings ClauseImpairment of ContractsState Insurance FundWorkers' Compensation LawState AgenciesPrivate Property RightsFiduciary DutyPremium Rates
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Welfare Fund v. Frascone

Plaintiffs, consisting of pension and benefits funds, their administrator, and a union president, initiated a suit to recover unpaid contributions owed under collective bargaining agreements. The original defendants included Sovereign Building Corp. and Anthony Frascone, who were in default or insolvent, and Contractors Casualty and Surety Company, which was also insolvent. The primary defendants in the present motion were Trataros Construction, Inc., the general contractor, and Seaboard Surety Company, its surety. Plaintiffs sought to recover contributions based on a surety bond issued in connection with a public improvement contract where Sovereign was a subcontractor to Trataros. The defendants argued ERISA preemption, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and defenses based on the Union's breach of agreements and the plaintiffs' failure to provide timely notice. The court asserted supplemental jurisdiction and found that the claims against Trataros and Seaboard were not ERISA-preempted. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment to Trataros and Seaboard for claims arising from the first collective bargaining agreement due to untimely notice, but granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs for claims under the second agreement, rejecting the defendants' breach of contract defense as it could not be asserted against the funds as third-party beneficiaries.

ERISASurety BondCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsBenefits ContributionsState Finance LawLien LawPreemptionSupplemental JurisdictionSummary Judgment
References
27
Case No. No. 77 Civ. 4712 (MP)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1978

National Ben. Fund, Etc. v. Presby. H., Etc.

The National Benefit Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers and the National Pension Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers (the Funds) sued Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, Inc. (Hospital) to recover allegedly owed contributions based on collective bargaining agreements. The Hospital moved to dismiss, asserting the action was barred by a prior arbitration award between the Union (District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees) and the Hospital, which concerned the same contributions and was dismissed due to the Union's unreasonable delay. The District Court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, held that the arbitration award had res judicata effect. The court determined that the Funds were either in privity with the Union or acted as third-party beneficiaries subject to the same defenses as the promisee Union. Consequently, the court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Arbitration AwardRes Judicata DoctrineEmployee Benefit FundsCollective Bargaining DisputesSummary Judgment MotionHospital Labor RelationsUnion RepresentationERISA ClaimsPreclusionFederal District Court
References
19
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. ADJ7892653
Regular
Jul 22, 2016

PETER ALVAREZ vs. CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the order that joined the Office of the Attorney General as a party. The Board found the Attorney General was not a necessary party as the applicant clearly identified the California National Guard as their employer. Furthermore, the Board raised a jurisdictional issue, as National Guard service under Title 32, which may apply here, generally precludes state workers' compensation benefits. The case is returned to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction.

Petition for RemovalOrder Joining Party DefendantCalifornia National GuardState Active DutyTitle 32Title 10Inactive Duty TrainingMilitary and Veterans CodeNachbaurJurisdiction
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 6,421 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