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

Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n v. International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades

This case involves an ongoing jurisdictional dispute between the Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Association (Plasterers Local 530) and the International Brotherhood of Painters and Aided Trades (Painters Local 1486) concerning 'skimcoating' work at the Nordstrom’s Project. The Plasterers initiated the action after the contractor, Island Taping, Inc., hired the Painters' Local 1486 instead of Local 530. After local and national arbitration attempts failed to resolve the arbitrability issue, the Plasterers requested the District Court to either compel arbitration or assume jurisdiction to decide the dispute and sought a preliminary injunction. The Court ruled that the question of arbitrability was not clearly delegated to the arbitrator and must be decided independently by the Court. A hearing has been ordered to determine if Local 1486 is affiliated with the New York Plan, which would establish arbitrability. The Court also denied the request for a preliminary injunction due to a lack of demonstrated irreparable harm.

jurisdictional disputelabor unionsarbitrationNational Labor Relations Actpreliminary injunctionarbitrabilityunion affiliationskimcoating workconstruction industryfederal court jurisdiction
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n Local 202 v. Board of Trustees of the Plastering Industry Welfare & Pension Trust Funds

This case addresses a dispute between two union locals, Local 202 and Local 60, both affiliated with the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association. Following Local 60's termination of a reciprocal agreement that facilitated the exchange of benefit contributions for members working outside their home jurisdiction, Local 202 sued, alleging violations of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and ERISA. The court found that Local 60's refusal to transfer contributions created a 'structural defect' in its benefit plans, which prevented Local 202 members from receiving benefits earned by their labor within Local 60's jurisdiction. Citing the 'sole and exclusive benefit' provision of the LMRA, the court concluded that reciprocity was legally required to prevent unjust enrichment. Consequently, the court granted Local 202's motion for summary judgment and denied Local 60's.

Union DisputeBenefit FundsEmployee BenefitsReciprocal AgreementLabor Management Relations ActERISAStructural DefectSummary JudgmentUnjust EnrichmentInter-union Agreement
References
6
Case No. ADJ12376717
Regular
Mar 28, 2023

RONNIE JOHNSON vs. FUTURE PLASTERING, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has issued an Opinion and Order dismissing a Petition for Removal. The petitioner, Future Plastering, Inc. and its insurer, Insurance Company of the West, voluntarily withdrew their petition. Therefore, the WCAB dismissed the petition for removal of the August 24, 2022 decision.

Petition for RemovalDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFuture PlasteringInsurance Company of the WestRonnie JohnsonAdjudication NumberVan Nuys District OfficeOpinion and Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ7370794
Regular
Nov 27, 2013

ALFREDO MONROY vs. CALIFORNIA PLASTERING, INC., PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's prior decision in Monroy v. California Plastering, Inc. The Board returned the matter for further proceedings and decision by the WCJ, as the prior decision was not a final determination on the merits. The Board noted that a preliminary injunction regarding lien activation fees was not relevant in this case as the fee had been paid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationWCJPreliminary injunctionLien activation feeAngelotti ChiropracticRescindedFurther proceedingsTrial levelAlfredo Monroy
References
1
Case No. ADJ859899
Regular
Feb 25, 2011

FERNANDO SOSA vs. RIGOBERTO URIARTE DBA RIGO'S PLASTERING, UNISURED EMPLOYERS FUND

This case concerns a second petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Rigoberto Uriarte DBA Rigo's Plastering, challenging both the original administrative law judge's decision and the Board's prior denial of reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as legally impermissible, citing precedent that prohibits successive petitions after a decision has been rendered. The defendant's sole recourse after the Board's denial was to petition for a writ of review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalConsecutive PetitionSuccessive PetitionWrit of ReviewWCJ DecisionBoard DecisionCrowe Glass CompanyNavarro v. A&A Farming
References
4
Case No. ADJ4657834 (SFO 0500292)
Regular
Jun 07, 2010

LILIA LLERANDI CHAPITAL, GUSTAVO HILDALGO (Deceased) vs. DWIGHT JEFFERS, aka DWIGHT E. JEFFERS, individually and as a substantial shareholder of DEJ ENTERPRISES a NEVADA CORPORATION, illegally uninsured, EXPERT PLASTERING INC. and CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, BEHLER ASSOCIATES INC. dba BEHLER CONSTRUCTION and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision granted reconsideration to amend a finding. The Board affirmed that the deceased was employed by Dwight Jeffers, individually and uninsured, and not by Expert Plastering, DEJ Enterprises, or Behler Construction. The Court rejected the argument that Labor Code section 2750.5 compelled a finding of employment with Behler due to Jeffers's lack of license, as Jeffers was not a subcontractor of Behler.

WCABdeclaratory reliefsole jurisdictiongeneral employmentspecial employmentalter ego doctrinedual employmentjoint employmentLabor Code section 2750.5unlicensed contractor
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mejia v. Trustees of Net Realty Holding Trust

The third-party defendant, Plaster Master, appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which had denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law on a contractual indemnification claim. The lower court had found Plaster Master contractually obligated to indemnify Kimco Realty Services, Inc., the general contractor, in a case stemming from a personal injury lawsuit by a Plaster Master employee. The appellate court found the indemnification provision in the contract, drafted by Kimco, to be ambiguous. Due to the ambiguity and lack of clarifying parol evidence, the court resolved the ambiguity against Kimco. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted Plaster Master's motion, and dismissed Kimco's third-party claim for contractual indemnification.

Contractual IndemnificationAmbiguity in ContractParol EvidenceConstruction LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityMeeting of the MindsThird-Party Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 1990

Public Administrator v. Trump Village Construction Corp.

The plaintiff's decedent, an employee of subcontractor Crown Plastering Corp., suffered fatal injuries after falling from scaffolding during a renovation project. The court affirmed an order that granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff Public Administrator regarding the liability of general contractor Charles Construction Corp. under Labor Law § 240 (1). It also affirmed partial summary judgment for property owner Trump Village Construction Corp. and lessee Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. against Charles Construction Corp. for common-law indemnity, finding their liability vicarious. Charles Construction Corp.'s motion for summary judgment against subcontractor Crown Plastering Corp. was denied due to unresolved factual issues regarding comparative fault.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Scaffolding AccidentWorker FallVicarious LiabilityCommon-Law IndemnityGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityProximate CauseAppellate Affirmation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2003

Bricklayers & Allied Craft-Workers Local 2 v. C.G. Yantch, Inc.

This case involves plaintiffs, a union and various benefit funds, suing defendants, C.G. Yantch, Inc., Christopher Yantch, and Yantch Plaster & Stucco Systems, LLC, for alleged delinquencies in fringe benefit contributions under collective bargaining agreements, violating ERISA. The court addressed motions for dismissal and summary judgment. It found C.G. Yantch, Inc. liable for failing to remit contributions under the CEA and ECA Agreements. Yantch Plaster & Stucco Systems, LLC, was also held liable as a 'single employer' and 'alter ego' of C.G. Yantch. However, the court denied personal liability for Christopher Yantch, finding a triable issue of fact regarding his intent to defraud. All of the defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including those for fraud in the execution and breach of contract, were dismissed. The case is set for a bench trial to determine the total damages award and Christopher Yantch's personal liability.

ERISAFringe Benefit ContributionsCollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentAlter EgoSingle Employer DoctrinePersonal LiabilityFraud in the InducementFraud in the Execution
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwab v. A.J. Martini, Inc.

Plaintiff, a plasterer, was injured while working on scaffolding when a heavy bucket of plaster being handed up by a co-worker jerked his hands and upper body downward. Plaintiff and his wife sued the general contractor (A.J. Martini, Inc.) and the property owner (Union College/Trustees of Union College) alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the incident did not fall under the 'falling object' protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) as the bucket was not improperly hoisted or secured. The court also dismissed claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) for failing to cite specific safety regulations and Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims due to the defendants' lack of control over the work or notice of unsafe conditions.

Labor LawScaffolding AccidentPersonal InjuryConstruction Site SafetyWorkplace SafetyGravity-Related AccidentFalling Object DoctrineSummary Judgment GrantAppellate ReviewWorkplace Negligence
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 54 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