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. 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

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

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
Jun 20, 1996

Trustees of the Health & Welfare & the Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards v. Schlesinger Bros.

Plaintiffs, Trustees of the Health and Welfare and Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards and Esther Maiese, filed an action against Schlesinger Brothers, Inc. and the International Leather Goods, Plastics, Novelty and Service Workers Union, alleging violations of ERISA and LMRA. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that defendants breached ERISA's 'sole benefit rule' by diverting contributions from the FJBC Funds to the International's Funds. They also alleged that Schlesinger violated the collective bargaining agreement under LMRA. The court determined that Schlesinger did not act as a fiduciary under ERISA and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the LMRA claim against the employer. Similarly, the court found that the International union was not subject to fiduciary duties under ERISA when engaged in collective bargaining. Consequently, the court granted Schlesinger's motion to dismiss the entire complaint and the International's motion to dismiss the ERISA claim, leaving only the LMRA claim against the International viable.

ERISALMRAFiduciary DutyCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissPension FundsHealth and Welfare FundsUnionEmployer LiabilityStanding
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iron Workers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Health Fund v. Dinnigan

The case involves a dispute between the Iron Workers Locals 40, 361, & 417 Health Fund and Robert Dinnigan, Amanda C. Dinnigan Supplemental Needs Irrevocable Trust, and their attorney regarding reimbursement of medical expenses. The Health Fund sought nearly $1.7 million paid for Amanda Dinnigan's severe injuries from a third-party tortfeasor settlement. Defendants argued against reimbursement, citing state anti-subrogation laws and the "made-whole" doctrine. The court ruled that the Health Fund was self-insured, thus preempting state law, and that the 2008 SPD, which rejected the made-whole doctrine, applied to most expenses. Ultimately, the court ordered judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,292,278, having reduced the claim by 25% to account for the Defendants' attorneys' fees and expenses in securing the original settlement.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsHealth Fund ReimbursementSubrogationEquitable ReliefSelf-Insured PlanMade-Whole DoctrinePersonal Injury SettlementSupplemental Needs TrustAttorneys' Fees
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ames v. Group Health Inc.

Plaintiffs, including trustees John Ames and Michael Pantony of the United Welfare Fund-Welfare Division (UWF) and participant Fred Tremarcke, sued Group Health Incorporated (GHI) under ERISA and HIPAA. They alleged GHI illegally discriminated against Tremarcke by denying his health coverage after he went on disability leave, arguing it violated HIPAA's anti-discrimination provisions and breached the insurance policy. Tremarcke's employer, Classic Chevrolet, continued making health contributions on his behalf, and a 'Side Letter of Understanding' with his union attempted to maintain his 'active employee' status. The court ultimately ruled in favor of GHI, finding that Tremarcke did not meet the eligibility requirements of the UWF-GHI plan, which required working over 20 hours per week, and that the 'Side Letter' could not unilaterally alter GHI's contractual obligations. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment was granted, dismissing the second and third causes of action.

ERISAHIPAACOBRAHealth InsuranceDisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractMulti-employer FundCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Building Service 32B-J Pension Fund v. Vanderveer Estates Holding, LLC

Plaintiff Funds moved for reconsideration of a previous opinion and to hold the defendant Vanderveer in contempt. The court granted the motion for reconsideration, finding that Vanderveer was bound by the 1997 Agreement's 'Evergreen Clause' to continue contributions after April 20, 2000, as the subsequent 2000 Agreement did not bind Vanderveer and no cancellation notice was filed. The motion to hold Vanderveer in contempt for willfully delaying the filing of a $75,000 bond was also granted, with Vanderveer ordered to pay the Funds' costs and attorney's fees. However, the contempt motion was denied as to Abraham Weider, Vanderveer's principal, as he was not a named party.

Collective Bargaining AgreementEvergreen ClauseMotion for ReconsiderationContempt MotionEmployer ContributionsPension FundsAnnuity FundsLabor LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e)Local Civil Rule 6.3
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund v. Estate of DePerno

This memorandum-decision and order, issued on remand, addresses the damages in a case where Rocco F. DePerno and Rocco A. DePerno violated ERISA by hiring employees of Rocco A. DePerno's business (Sea Shell Inn cooks) as maintenance workers for the New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund. While liability for fiduciary breach was established, the court previously awarded only nominal damages, which was reversed on appeal. On remand, the court found that the defendants successfully proved the hired workers' services were "reasonably necessary" to the Fund, primarily to replace a fired worker and reduce overtime for existing staff. Despite the breach of fiduciary duty due to self-dealing, the Fund suffered no actual loss as the cooks performed legitimate tasks and were paid reasonable wages. Consequently, the plaintiffs were again awarded only one dollar in nominal damages.

ERISAFiduciary Duty BreachNominal DamagesRemand OrderEmployee BenefitsSelf-dealingTrust Law PrinciplesMaintenance StaffingOvertime ReductionNorthern District of New York
References
2
Case No. 98-CV-1033
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2015

Chao v. International Brotherhood of Industrial Workers Health & Welfare Fund

The Secretary of Labor initiated this ERISA action against fiduciaries of the International Brotherhood of Industrial Workers Health and Welfare Fund (BIW Fund) due to alleged embezzlement by Clarke Lasky and breaches of fiduciary duties. The District Court had previously found violations and assumed control over the distribution of the BIW Fund's remaining assets. Currently, the court addresses motions concerning the Independent Fiduciary's proposed plan for asset distribution and a dispute over whether the National Organization of Industrial Trade Unions (NOITU Fund) is the legal successor to the BIW Fund. The court adopts Magistrate Judge Lindsay's Reports and Recommendations, concluding that the NOITU Fund is not the BIW Fund's legal successor. Consequently, Employee Health Plan Administrators' objections to this finding are overruled, and the court defers ruling on the balance of the parties' applications regarding asset distribution.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee BenefitsWelfare FundSuccessor LiabilityEmbezzlementSummary JudgmentMagistrate Judge Report and RecommendationObjections OverruledDistrict Court
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fishbein v. Miranda

This case involves the Union Mutual Medical Fund (UMMF) and its Trustees (Plaintiffs) suing the Local 210 Affiliated Health and Insurance Fund (Defendant Local 210 Fund) and others for alleged violations of ERISA and breach of contract. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed to remit portions of employer contributions owed to UMMF under collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and the Duane Reade Settlement. Defendant Local 210 Fund moved to dismiss the first, second, and third causes of action in the Amended Complaint, arguing lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action, finding that the CBAs were enforceable against the defendants as third-party beneficiaries and that the requested equitable relief was appropriate under ERISA. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the third cause of action, concluding that the defendants do not qualify as "employers" under ERISA § 515 for the purpose of employer liability.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsMulti-employer PlanCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionEquitable Relief
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 14,570 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