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

Snodgrass v. Snodgrass

This document is a concurring and dissenting opinion by Judge GARY R. WADE regarding the interpretation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-121(b)(1)(B) concerning marital and separate property in divorce cases. Judge Wade concurs with the majority that Mr. Snodgrass's 401(k) was not transmuted and that premarital contributions are separate property. However, he dissents from the majority's conclusion that the increase in value of these premarital contributions should be classified as marital property. He argues that the statutory phrase 'accrued during the period of the marriage' refers to the time the retirement benefit right is earned or acquired, not its subsequent appreciation. Citing prior precedents like Cohen v. Cohen and Langschmidt v. Langschmidt, Judge Wade asserts that premarital contributions and their appreciation should remain separate property unless clear evidence of commingling or substantial spousal contribution to their preservation and appreciation is presented, thus advocating for a remand to address these factors.

Marital PropertySeparate PropertyRetirement Benefits401(k) AccountsStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawDivorceEquitable DivisionComminglingSubstantial Contribution
References
15
Case No. ADJ581749 (VNO 0529719)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

ARLENE HITE vs. TEPCO (STANDARD ABRASIVES, INC.), EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Clarendon National Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's contribution award. Clarendon argued it should not be liable for contribution because it was joined as a defendant over a year after the underlying cumulative trauma claim was settled. The Board denied reconsideration, finding that Clarendon received timely actual notice of Everest's contribution claim within one year of the settlement approval. Therefore, despite the delay in formal joinder, Clarendon cannot show prejudice and is liable for its share of the contribution award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ContributionLabor Code section 5500.5Cumulative traumaCompromise and releaseOrder of JoinderNunc pro tuncActual noticeTimely noticePrejudice
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sciascia v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

The Trustees of the Special and Superior Officers Benevolent Association Defined Contribution Fund (Plaintiffs) sued Rochdale Village, Inc. (Defendant) for allegedly failing to make required contributions to the fund. The Plaintiffs' claims were brought under Section 301 of the LMRA and Sections 515 and 502(a)(3) of ERISA. The Defendant argued that its obligation was contingent on an unsatisfied condition precedent and that the contributions would be illegal under LMRA Section 302. The Court found the Memorandum of Agreement created an unambiguous obligation for the Defendant to contribute, and the SSOBA Fund did not violate LMRA Section 302. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the Defendant's motion.

ERISALMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDefined Contribution PlanPension FundSummary JudgmentCondition PrecedentMultiemployer PlanTrust FundEmployer Contributions
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1992

Baca v. HRH Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order dismissing a third-party plaintiff's claim for contribution. The court determined that a pre-verdict "high-low" agreement between the plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff general contractor constituted a release under General Obligations Law § 15-108, thereby barring the contribution claim against the third-party defendant. It was also noted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal the dismissal of the third-party claim. Furthermore, the court found that the third-party plaintiff's purported assignment of its contribution claim to the plaintiff was void, as no claim to assign existed given that its liability was limited to less than its equitable share by the settlement. The court also questioned whether such an assignment could circumvent the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions.

High-low agreementContribution claimGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108ReleaseCPLR 5511Standing to appealWorkers' Compensation Law exclusivityEquitable shareAssignment of claimThird-party practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens v. Microtech Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing its complaint for contribution and indemnification against the defendant. The defendant had employed two undocumented aliens who were injured on the plaintiff's property and received workers' compensation benefits. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's alleged violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should negate the protections of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which typically bars third-party claims against employers unless specific exceptions apply. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the IRCA does not preempt Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and a violation of IRCA does not abrogate an employer's immunity from third-party claims for contribution and indemnification.

ContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)CPLR 3211 (a) (7)PreemptionUndocumented AliensEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ClaimsStatutory Interpretation
References
33
Case No. 05-01158
Regular Panel Decision

In Re ACE Elevator Co., Inc.

The Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Benefit Plans sought administrative priority for delinquent contributions from A.C.E. Elevator Co., Inc. (ACE), based on various sections of the Bankruptcy Code. The court denied administrative priority for most claims, including those under 11 U.S.C. §§ 503(b)(1)(A), 507(a)(1), and 1113(f), reasoning that the contributions were for prepetition work and that section 1113(f) does not create super-priority. However, the motion was partially granted under 11 U.S.C. § 1114(e) for Welfare Plan contributions, recognizing them as retiree benefits despite their prepetition nature, but requiring further information on the exact allocation to retirees. Claims for interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees were denied priority, as was ACE's request for costs. This decision underscores the careful interpretation of priority schemes within bankruptcy law.

Bankruptcy LawAdministrative PriorityEmployee BenefitsPension PlansWelfare PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementsDebtor-in-PossessionRetiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection ActPrepetition ClaimsPostpetition Claims
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garrett v. Holiday Inns, Inc.

The court reviewed an appeal regarding the sufficiency of third-party complaints filed by the lessee, owners, and developers of a Holiday Inn (original defendants and third-party plaintiffs) against the Town of Greece (third-party defendant). The original negligence actions sought damages after a motel fire. The third-party plaintiffs sought contribution and indemnity from the town, despite the town having been previously dismissed from the primary actions due to owing no duty to the original plaintiffs. The court reversed the Special Term's decision, ruling that a third-party action for contribution or indemnity requires the third-party defendant to have violated a duty owed to the original plaintiff. As the Town of Greece owed no such duty, the third-party complaints were dismissed, aligning with established rules for joint tort-feasors and principles of unjust enrichment.

Third-party complaintContributionIndemnityNegligenceDuty of careMunicipal liabilityTort-feasorsUnjust enrichmentFire damagesCertificate of occupancy
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1999

In Re Jaiyesimi

This case consolidates two Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions concerning whether debtors' pension loan repayments and contributions constitute 'disposable income' under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b). Debtors Adeyemi O. Jaiyesimi, Olu-funke E. Jaiyesimi, and Sharlene De Ann Taylor moved to discontinue these deductions, while the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee objected to their plans, arguing these funds should be included in the bankruptcy estate. The New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS), represented by Corporation Counsel, contended the payments were mandatory. Judge Cornelius Blackshear of the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court ruled that both pension loan repayments and pension contributions are disposable income and are not mandatory conditions of employment, thus ordering their discontinuation as separate payroll deductions and requiring their inclusion in the debtors' reorganization plans.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyDisposable IncomePension Loan RepaymentRetirement ContributionBankruptcy Estate PropertyMandatory DeductionStatutory InterpretationNew York City Employees' Retirement SystemCreditor DividendReorganization Plan Confirmation
References
10
Case No. ADJ2046608 (VNO 0502368)
Regular
Mar 07, 2012

NOE PEREZ vs. HERRICK CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Herrick Corporation's Petition for Removal, rescinding a WCJ order. The Board is now intending to dismiss Herrick's Petition for Contribution against SCIF. This is because Herrick's contribution claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Labor Code section 5500.5(e). The Order Approving Compromise and Release was dated August 31, 2006, and Herrick's petition was filed over two and a half years later.

Petition for RemovalContributionCarve-out JurisdictionLabor Code Sections 3201.53201.7State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF)Alexander BuggyCompromise and ReleaseArbitratorJoint and Several Award
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2009

Kitkas v. Windsor Place Corp.

This case involves an appeal by Boca Electric Corp., a second third-party defendant, from an order denying its motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, an employee of Boca, sustained personal injuries in an electrical explosion at a construction site. Boca argued that the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which would preclude claims for contribution and common-law indemnification against an employer. The appellate court found that Boca met its burden of proof, and the plaintiff and Windsor Place Corp., the premises owner, failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding a qualifying grave injury. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order and granted Boca's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action for contribution and common-law indemnification against it.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContributionCommon-law IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryEmployer LiabilityConstruction AccidentElectrical InjuryAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,432 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