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

Sanford v. Life Insurance

Plaintiff Edward Sanford filed an ERISA action against Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) to contest the denial of his short- and long-term disability benefits. Sanford had voluntarily resigned from his employment on November 3, 2010, and sustained an injury on November 8, 2010. LINA denied his claim, asserting he was not an "eligible employee" or "in Active Service" at the time of the injury, despite having accrued paid time off. The District Court applied an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, concluding that LINA's decision was rational given the plan provisions and the administrative record, as Sanford was retired and not on a "scheduled vacation day" as per the policy definitions. The Court granted LINA's motion for judgment and denied Sanford's.

ERISADisability BenefitsShort-Term DisabilityLong-Term DisabilityBenefits DenialEmployment TerminationVoluntary ResignationActive ServicePlan InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
25
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02173 [137 AD3d 657]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2016

Wittels v. Sanford

This case involves an appeal concerning the confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Steven L. Wittels, a partner in a dissolved law firm. The Supreme Court had affirmed the arbitrators' decision, which entitled Wittels to an accounting and distribution of his partnership interest, ruling that potential violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct did not override this entitlement or violate public policy. The arbitrators also correctly denied a counterclaim for disgorgement of compensation, finding earlier payments untainted. However, the Appellate Division found that the Supreme Court erred in striking portions of the cross-petition to vacate the arbitration award. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment confirming the award, reversed the order to strike portions of the cross-petition, and dismissed the appeal from an earlier order.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationPartnership DissolutionAttorney EthicsRules of Professional ConductPublic Policy ViolationFaithless Servant DoctrineDisgorgement of CompensationAppellate Review StandardCPLR 7511Motion to Strike
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2013

National Integrated Group Pension Plan v. Dunhill Food Equipment Corp.

This case, filed under ERISA, involves the National Integrated Group Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees (Plaintiffs) seeking to collect withdrawal liability from Dunhill Food Equipment, Esquire Mechanical, Geoffrey Thaw, Sanford Associates, and Custom Stainless (Defendants). The core dispute revolved around whether the non-Dunhill defendants were part of a commonly controlled group at the time of Dunhill's withdrawal from the pension plan, and whether Geoffrey Thaw could be held personally liable through veil piercing. The court ruled that Dunhill, Esquire, and Thaw were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability, attorney's fees, costs, interest, and liquidated damages, finding Thaw's complete domination and misuse of corporate funds justified piercing the corporate veil. However, the claims against Sanford and Custom Stainless were dismissed, as they were determined to have effectively dissolved prior to the withdrawal date, thus not being members of the controlled group.

ERISA LitigationMPPAA LiabilityPension WithdrawalCorporate Veil PiercingSummary Judgment MotionControlled Group LiabilityCorporate DissolutionPersonal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawFiduciary Breach
References
48
Case No. ADJ1360622 (ANA 0407664)
Regular
Jul 22, 2013

LUCIUS SANFORD vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS\/CLEVELAND BROWNS, BUFFALO BILLS

This case concerns an applicant's workers' compensation claim against the Cleveland Browns for injuries sustained as a professional football player. The Appeals Board, reconsidering a prior award, determined that the Browns and the applicant were exempt from California workers' compensation jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(b). This exemption applies when an employee is hired outside of California, temporarily works within the state, and the employer provides coverage under another state's laws that reciprocally exempts such arrangements. Consequently, the prior award was rescinded, and the Browns were dismissed as a defendant, with the case returned for further proceedings.

WCABADJ1360622Lucius SanfordBaltimore RavensCleveland BrownsBuffalo BillsLabor Code Section 3600.5(b)Findings And AwardWCJpermanent disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollack v. Hobbs

Sanford Pollack, previously convicted of arson and other crimes, filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking to vacate his arson conviction. He argued that the federal court lacked jurisdiction due to an insufficient interstate commerce nexus for the property involved. The government opposed the motion on both procedural and substantive grounds. The court ultimately denied the petition, finding it procedurally barred because Pollack failed to raise the jurisdictional challenge on direct appeal or in a timely § 2255 motion. Additionally, the court found the jurisdictional claim to be without merit, citing Pollack's own guilty plea allocution where he admitted the property's use in interstate commerce.

Habeas Corpus PetitionArson ConvictionFederal JurisdictionInterstate Commerce NexusProcedural BarPlea Agreement WaiverCollateral Attack28 U.S.C. 224128 U.S.C. 2255Timeliness
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lucas v. KD Development Constuction Corp.

The injured plaintiff, a construction worker, was struck by a car while acting as a flagman at a construction site. Defendants KD International Development Corp., the general contractor, and Sanford Tower Associates, the owner, appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The appellate court modified the order, granting summary judgment to the defendants for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.29, finding they complied with flagman requirements. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim concerning 12 NYCRR 23-1.30 (lighting), as defendants failed to show prima facie compliance, and for the Labor Law § 200 claims due to existing questions of fact regarding supervision and control.

Personal InjuriesConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentLabor LawFlagman DutyIndustrial CodeLighting SafetyNegligenceAppellate DecisionPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Bosswick

Michael Thompson, a former estate manager for the Riverside Trust, sued its trustees Mark Bosswick and Sanford E. Ehrenkranz, and manager Peter Lambert. Thompson alleged defamation, tortious interference with prospective business and contractual relations, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract related to a confidentiality agreement, breach of contract for severance pay, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with employment relations. He claimed Lambert defamed him by spreading false information about kickbacks and misconduct to employment agencies and the Trust's principals, costing him job opportunities. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion on all counts except for the defamation claim, which was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, defamation claims concerning statements to Vincent Minuto and Lynn Warren survived, while others were dismissed due to lack of evidence or qualified privilege.

DefamationSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceBreach of ContractAt-Will EmploymentQualified PrivilegeNegligent MisrepresentationEmployment LawSlanderKickbacks
References
51
Case No. ADJ2808758 (LAO 0794092) ADJ498371 (LAO 0794797) ADJ1598529 (LAO 0794093) ADJ992999 (LAO 0794094)
Regular
Mar 24, 2014

BERNARD JENSEN vs. INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, CALIFORNIA WHOLESALE LENDERS, SANFORD RUIZ, ET AL., GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY

A former attorney, Dean Donin, sought reconsideration of approved settlements, claiming he was not awarded attorney fees and was not served with the approval orders. The Appeals Board dismissed his petition because Donin failed to file a lien claim for his attorney fees after being substituted out of the case. This failure to file a lien meant he was not on the official address record, thus not entitled to service of subsequent orders. The Board warned Donin that such untimely petitions, often due to a lack of lien filing, waste resources and could lead to sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney FeesLien ClaimantSubsequent Injuries Benefit Trust FundElectronic Adjudication Management SystemWCJ Report and RecommendationLack of StandingUntimely Filing
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLaughlin v. Biasucci

Defendant Paul Mancuso moved to amend his answer to assert a cross-claim against co-defendant Joseph Biasucci and to file a third-party complaint impleading Sanford Pollack and the law firm of Milman, Manes & Pollack. The Secretary of Labor, the plaintiff, opposed the third-party complaint. Mancuso, charged with breaching ERISA fiduciary duties related to an investment with Penvest, sought contribution from Pollack, alleging malpractice for failing to conduct proper due diligence as the Plan's attorney. Judge Sweet granted the motion to file the proposed third-party complaint, recognizing ancillary jurisdiction over the state law malpractice claim, despite declining an implied ERISA contribution claim against non-fiduciaries.

ERISAFiduciary DutyBreach of Fiduciary DutyContribution ClaimThird-Party ComplaintMalpracticeNegligenceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 14Ancillary JurisdictionInvestment Management
References
18
Case No. 03 Civ. 1675
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2004

Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC

The case involves plaintiff Jennifer Arculeo's claims of sexual harassment and employment discrimination against On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC and Sanford Pankin d/b/a Crystal Hills, LLC, under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing they did not meet Title VII's fifteen-employee threshold. The court addressed whether employees of "joint employers" could be aggregated to satisfy this requirement. Following prior Southern District decisions, the court ruled against aggregation, upholding that each entity must independently meet the employee minimum. Consequently, the plaintiff's Title VII claims were dismissed with prejudice, and her NYHRL claims were dismissed without prejudice, opting not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Title VIIHuman Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentSummary Judgment MotionJoint Employer DoctrineEmployee ThresholdFederal JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionDistrict Court Decision
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 14 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