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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curry v. American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502

Curry, a former Regional Insurance Underwriting Manager for AIG, sued American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502 and American International Life Assurance Co. of New York ("AI Life") under ERISA § 502(a) after her long-term disability benefits were terminated. Curry suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis and diabetes. AI Life initially approved her benefits but later terminated them, alleging she could perform a sedentary occupation, relying on unverified medical responses. The court found AI Life's decision to be arbitrary and capricious due to its reliance on unreliable medical opinions, failure to clarify the record, and disregard for Curry's doctors' reports. Consequently, the court granted Curry's motion for summary judgment, denying the defendants' motion, and ordered the reinstatement of her benefits with prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

ERISALong-term disabilityBenefits terminationArbitrary and capricious standardConflict of interestMedical opinionUnreliable evidenceSummary judgmentOrthopaedic conditionsDiabetes
References
10
Case No. 12 Civ. 5645(KPF)
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2015

Wedge v. Shawmut Design & Construction Group Long Term Disability Insurance Plan

This case involves Plaintiff William Wedge's challenge under ERISA against the Shawmut Plan and Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (RSLI) for the termination of his long-term disability benefits. Wedge, a former Senior Project Manager, suffered from Central Serous Chorioretinopathy (CSCR) and had his benefits denied by RSLI, which determined he was not "Totally Disabled" under the "Any Occupation" clause. The court applied an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, considering RSLI's structural conflict of interest but finding it warranted minimal weight. Ultimately, the court concluded that RSLI's decision, supported by comprehensive medical and vocational evidence, including an Independent Medical Examination, was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and Defendants' motion was granted.

ERISA LitigationLong Term DisabilityBenefits DenialArbitrary and Capricious ReviewSummary Judgment MotionDiscretionary AuthorityConflict of InterestCentral Serous ChorioretinopathyMedical EvidenceVocational Assessment
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1992

PINE BARRENS v. Planning Bd.

This case addresses whether the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) mandates a cumulative impact statement for over 200 proposed development projects in the Central Pine Barrens region of Long Island. The Central Pine Barrens is a vital ecological area, serving as the sole natural source of drinking water for millions and harboring numerous endangered species, leading to various protective legislations. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's ruling, determining that a mandatory cumulative impact study under SEQRA is not applicable here because there is no overarching governmental 'plan' for development in the region, only general protective policies. The court emphasized that comprehensive planning for this area should be conducted by the Long Island Regional Planning Board as outlined in ECL article 55, rather than through individual SEQRA assessments. It also noted the significant delay in the Regional Planning Board's action, urging legislative intervention to address this pressing environmental concern.

Environmental LawSEQRACumulative ImpactPine BarrensSuffolk CountyLong IslandAquifer ProtectionLand Use PlanningState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning Board
References
6
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. ADJ9351345
Regular
Jul 05, 2016

WILLIAM YONEMITSU vs. PACIFIC BELL TELPHONE COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant Pacific Bell sought reconsideration of a decision awarding applicant cumulative injury benefits and denying the employer's claim for "excess credit." The defendant argued it was entitled to credit for payments made under a disability plan, citing relevant case law. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing with the trial judge that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof. This failure was primarily due to not presenting the disability plan itself or evidence of its funding and the parties' intent at trial. The Board also noted that ERISA preemption was raised for the first time on reconsideration, without an evidentiary hearing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Bell Telephone CompanyOld Republic Insurance CompanyWilliam Yonemitsucumulative injurykneeslow backcable splicing techexcess creditPetition for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robert Plan Corp.

Kenneth Kirschenbaum, the Chapter 7 Trustee for The Robert Plan Corporation and The Robert Plan of New York Corporation, sought court approval for fee awards for himself and his professionals for administering an ERISA plan. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) objected, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction to award fees from Plan assets and had specific objections to the reasonableness of the fees. The court affirmed its core jurisdiction over the Trustee's actions as Plan administrator and his professionals' compensation, regardless of whether payments came from Plan or estate assets, citing previous rulings. The court analyzed whether Bankruptcy Code §§ 326 and 330 conflicted with ERISA statutes concerning fiduciary compensation, concluding no substantive conflict existed and the Bankruptcy Code's specific compensation scheme governed. Ultimately, the court largely overruled DOL's objections and granted the fee applications for the Trustee, K & K, Witz, and Whitfield, deeming the requested amounts reasonable and compliant with the Bankruptcy Code. The awards are payable from the Plan's Pguy Account, with any shortfall covered by the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawERISAChapter 7 TrusteeFee ApplicationPlan AdministrationJurisdictionReasonable CompensationStatutory ConstructionDepartment of LaborFiduciary Duties
References
50
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

Ganton Technologies, Inc. v. National Industrial Group Pension Plan

This case addresses a dispute between Ganton Technologies, Inc. and its employees (plaintiffs) and the National Industrial Group Pension Plan and its trustees (defendants). Plaintiffs sued under ERISA and LMRA, claiming defendants unlawfully refused to transfer pension assets from the multiemployer plan to Ganton's new single-employer plan. Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ERISA claims, finding the trustees' decision to deny asset transfer was not arbitrary and capricious and complied with ERISA's fiduciary duties and asset-transfer rules. However, the court denied defendants' counterclaim for delinquent contributions, determining Ganton's obligation to contribute ceased on January 26, 1992. The complaint was ultimately dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendants.

ERISALMRAPension PlanMultiemployer PlanAsset TransferFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentDelinquent ContributionsPlan AdministrationDefined-Benefit Plan
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medoy v. Warnaco Employees' Long Term Disability Insurance Plan

Plaintiff, Audrey Medoy, sued Warnaco Employees’ Long Term Disability Insurance Plan and Warnaco, Inc. (Defendants) under ERISA, alleging wrongful termination of disability benefits, failure to provide requested documents, and failure to retain claims records. Medoy's disability benefits were discontinued in 1987 without notice. After years of requesting information and appealing the decision, which was hampered by the destruction of her claims file, she filed this action in 1997. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were untimely, that Medoy was not a 'participant' entitled to disclosure, and that ERISA § 1027 did not cover claims records. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss on all grounds, finding her claims timely, her status as a 'participant' colorable, and claims records subject to retention under ERISA § 1027.

ERISALong-term Disability BenefitsStatute of LimitationsFailure to DiscloseRecord RetentionFutility ExceptionAccrual of ActionPlan Administrator DutiesParticipant StatusMotion to Dismiss
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 9,250 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