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

In re the Estate of Wilson

Dorothy S. Wilson, as executrix of the estate of Leonard R. Wilson, filed a petition for discovery against Lee Ford concerning the proceeds of Leonard R. Wilson's retirement plan, which named Ford as the beneficiary. Mr. Wilson died in 1985, having a vested benefit in the Corporate Profit Sharing Plan and Trust Agreement for Cobblestone Enterprises, Inc. The court considered the 1984 amendments to ERISA requiring a qualified preretirement survivor annuity (QPSA) for surviving spouses. Despite the plan's amendment occurring after Mr. Wilson's death, a transition rule mandated the QPSA amendments be treated as in effect at the time of death. The court, citing no New York authority, concluded that given the Cobblestone plan was a 'defined benefit plan' and under the ERISA transition rule, Dorothy S. Wilson, as the surviving spouse, was entitled to the entire $8,643.38 proceeds of the retirement plan.

ERISARetirement PlanQualified Preretirement Survivor AnnuityQPSADefined Benefit PlanTransition RuleSurviving SpouseBeneficiary DisputeEstateProbate
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stahl v. Exxon Corp.

Plaintiff Beverly Ann Robertson, formerly Beverly Ann Stahl, sought one-half of a Surviving Spouse Annuity (SSA) from her deceased former husband Andrew Jackson Stahl's employee benefit plan with ExxonMobil. Defendants ExxonMobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Pension Plan, and Andrew's surviving wife Jacqueline Stahl argued Beverly was not entitled due to her failure to secure a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) prior to Andrew's death. The court found that despite several attempts, Beverly's pre-death domestic relations orders did not meet ERISA's specific QDRO requirements, particularly regarding the designation of a surviving spouse. The court ruled that survivor annuity benefits irrevocably vested in Jacqueline, Andrew's current spouse, upon his death, thus a post-death QDRO could not divest her of these benefits. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

ERISAQDROPension BenefitsSurviving Spouse AnnuitySummary JudgmentFederal PreemptionEmployee BenefitsDivorce DecreeVesting RightsPlan Administrator Discretion
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hallingby Ex Rel. Estate of Hallingby v. Hallingby

Plaintiff Jo Davis Hallingby, as Executrix of the Estate of Paul Hallingby, Jr., sued Mai V. Harrison (formerly Mai V. Hallingby) to enforce a marital property settlement and recover annuity benefits. The action, initially including Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife), was removed to a Federal District Court after MetLife argued ERISA governance; MetLife was later dismissed. The core dispute revolves around whether Harrison waived her rights to survivor annuity benefits, designated by Paul Hallingby before his divorce, in a subsequent settlement agreement. The Court determined that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) applies, preempting New York State law. Analyzing ERISA's requirements and anti-alienation provisions, the Court found that the plan documents did not allow for a change in beneficiary after retirement and that Harrison's waiver, not being a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), was unenforceable. Consequently, Harrison's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Hallingby's was denied.

ERISAPension PlanAnnuity BenefitsBeneficiary DesignationWaiver of BenefitsAnti-alienation ProvisionSummary JudgmentFederal PreemptionMarital Settlement AgreementQualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

In re the Certification as Qualified Adoptive Parents Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 115-d

This case concerns Joanna K. and Scottye K.'s application to waive the mandatory certification as qualified adoptive parents for Jeremiah B., the biological son of Careese B. The K.s received physical custody of Jeremiah shortly after his birth in March 2009, prior to obtaining the required judicial certification, thereby violating New York's adoption statute. The court reviewed the convoluted history, including Careese B.'s judicial consent to adoption and the K.s' temporary custody order. However, the court denied the waiver application, emphasizing the critical importance of pre-placement certification to protect children and prevent unregulated transfers of custody. The decision stated that the petitioners failed to show good cause for waiver and that a retroactive approval of non-compliance would undermine legislative intent, although the K.s retain legal and physical custody pending the adoption petition.

Adoption Law CompliancePrivate-Placement Adoption RequirementsPre-Placement CertificationWaiver Application DenialChild Welfare LegislationFamily Law ProcedureJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParental Fitness StandardsCustody Transfer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Northwest Medical Center Survivor, Inc. v. King

This case involves an appeal by Houston Northwest Medical Center Survivor, Inc. (employer) against a jury verdict awarding Betty McInturff King (employee) $20,000 in exemplary damages for wrongful discharge under the Workers’ Compensation Act. King had alleged wrongful discharge or discrimination in violation of articles 8307c sections (1) and (2). The jury found that Houston Northwest did not violate article 8307c, section I, but did find that Houston Northwest acted willfully and maliciously, leading to the exemplary damages award. The appellate court examined whether exemplary damages could be awarded without actual damages in a wrongful discharge case, distinguishing it from cases where actual damages are inherently not recoverable. The court concluded that actual damages must precede exemplary damages in such a suit. Since the jury did not find liability for actual damages, the issues regarding willful and malicious conduct and exemplary damages were deemed immaterial. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment for Houston Northwest.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DischargeExemplary DamagesActual DamagesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewTexas LawArticle 8307cArticle 8306Gross Negligence
References
4
Case No. 01-15-00147-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2015

Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC

This case involves an appeal by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Metropolitan Insurance & Annuity Company (Appellants) against Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC and Sara Swain (Appellees) regarding a trial court's approval of a structured settlement payment rights transfer. Sara Swain, the payee, sought to transfer partial monthly payments to Peachtree, leading to a "Servicing Arrangement" approved by the trial court. This arrangement allowed Peachtree to receive the full monthly payments, retain its assigned portion, and remit the remainder to Swain, without requiring MetLife to directly divide payments. MetLife challenged this, asserting the arrangement improperly modified contracts, contravened the Texas Transfer Statute, and imposed an involuntary business relationship. The Appellee's brief argues for the affirmation of the trial court's decision, emphasizing the legality of the servicing arrangement under Texas's principles of contract assignability and principal-agency law, and affirming the transfer as being in Swain's best interest.

Structured SettlementPayment Rights TransferServicing ArrangementContract AssignabilityPrincipal-Agency LawBest Interest DeterminationAppellate ReviewTexas Transfer StatuteLegal PrecedentAnnuity Issuer Obligations
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. Allied Design & Construction, LLC

Petitioners, Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds, initiated an action to confirm an arbitration award against Allied Design & Construction, LLC. Allied, bound by a collective bargaining agreement, failed to undergo a payroll audit, leading the Funds to estimate a substantial deficiency in contributions. An arbitrator subsequently awarded the Funds $239,901.47, covering the estimated deficiency, interest, liquidated damages, and various fees. The Funds then sought to have this award confirmed by the District Court and requested additional attorneys' fees and costs incurred during the confirmation process. The District Court granted the petitioners' motions, confirming the arbitration award and ordering Allied to pay an additional $737.50 in attorneys' fees and costs.

Arbitration ConfirmationCollective BargainingDelinquent ContributionsAttorney Fees AwardCourt CostsLabor Management Relations ActFederal Arbitration ActSummary Judgment StandardLodestar CalculationUnion Welfare Funds
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kazel v. Kazel

The plaintiff, a former spouse named Sandra Kazel, sought survivor benefits from her deceased former husband's pension plan and a share of his Employee Savings Fund Plan. The court denied her application for survivor benefits, ruling that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) from their divorce did not explicitly designate her as a surviving spouse, which is required under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code for such benefits. The court distinguished survivor benefits from retirement benefits, finding the QDRO only granted her an interest in the latter. However, the court granted her request for 50% of the balance in the Employee Savings Fund Plan as of March 27, 1989, plus market experience, and directed the plan administrator, Niagara Mohawk, to determine the exact amount and distribute it to her, rejecting defenses of waiver, estoppel, and laches.

QDROERISAInternal Revenue CodePension BenefitsSurvivor BenefitsQualified Domestic Relations OrderEmployee Savings Fund PlanEquitable DistributionDomestic Relations LawDivorce Decree
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance & Annuity Funds v. Employer-Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance & Annuity Funds

A dispute arose between the Employer-Appointed Trustees and Union-Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance and Annuity Funds concerning delinquent employer contributions. An arbitrator issued an award, which the Employer-Appointed Trustees sought to confirm and the Union-Appointed Trustees cross-moved to vacate. Judge Walker of the District Court reviewed the arbitration award, noting the arbitrator based his findings on prior judicial decisions rather than independently interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. The Court determined that the arbitrator failed to apply the contract as bargained for by the parties, thus exceeding his authority. Consequently, the Court vacated the arbitration award and remanded the dispute for proceedings consistent with its order.

Arbitration AwardVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust FundsDelinquent ContributionsRes JudicataManifest Disregard of LawScope of Judicial ReviewLabor Dispute
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,804 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