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. 653709/2013
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2016

Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC v. SDI, Inc.

This case involves a dispute arising from an April 28, 2011 transaction where Plaintiffs (Sellers) sold shares in Project Eagle to Defendant SDI, Inc. (Purchaser). SDI claims Sellers breached representations and warranties in the Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA), while Sellers contend SDI breached the Escrow Agreement by submitting an invalid claim notice and retaining escrowed funds. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs also sought dismissal on spoliation grounds. The court partially granted and partially denied Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, dismissing SDI's claims regarding Taxes and temporary workers, but denying dismissal for Financial Statements and Suppliers/Customers. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the Sellers' Representative's claim for breach of the Escrow Agreement. Finally, Plaintiffs' motion for spoliation sanctions was denied due to a lack of demonstrated control over non-party entities.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentEscrow AgreementSpoliation of EvidenceStock Purchase AgreementCorporate AcquisitionIndemnification ClaimDue DiligenceFinancial StatementsSuppliers and Customers
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1984

Barnhardt v. Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds

The plaintiff, injured in May 1978 during maintenance work, was denied workers' compensation due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Subsequently, he sought reimbursement for medical expenses from the Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds (Benefit Funds) through a union insurance policy. Continental Assurance Company (Continental), Benefit Funds' insurer, rejected the claim, citing an employment-related injury exclusion in the policy. The plaintiff then initiated an action against Benefit Funds, which in turn filed a third-party action against Continental seeking indemnification. Continental's motion for summary judgment, asserting the exclusion, was denied by the County Court. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that the exclusionary language was ambiguous and applied only in cases where a clear employer-employee relationship existed, a fact still to be determined.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation ExclusionSummary Judgment MotionContractual AmbiguityGroup Health InsuranceMedical Expense ReimbursementThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.

The Trustees of the Local 852 General Warehouseman’s Union Pension Fund sued the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) seeking reimbursement for pension benefits paid to retirees of two closed warehouses. The Fund argued for recovery based on equitable estoppel, asserting detrimental reliance on an initial PBGC determination that it would guarantee these benefits. The PBGC moved for summary judgment, contending that estoppel against a federal agency requires a showing of affirmative misconduct or manifest injustice. The Court found no evidence of affirmative misconduct by the PBGC and concluded that its change in determination, made to conform with Congressional intent, did not constitute manifest injustice. Consequently, the Court granted the PBGC's motion for summary judgment, ruling that equitable estoppel was inapplicable.

Equitable EstoppelFederal Agency EstoppelSummary JudgmentERISAPension BenefitsMulti-employer PlanPension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC)Affirmative MisconductManifest InjusticeDetrimental Reliance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund of the Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the Electrical Industry

Plaintiff Claude Jeffries, a retired electrician, sued the Pension Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry under ERISA, seeking to include pension credits from 1969-1975 in his current benefits. He alleged the Plan should have declared a partial termination during a 1975-1979 New York recession, which would have vested his benefits. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of standing and statute of limitations, while plaintiff moved for class certification for similarly affected members. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for benefits, finding it timely, but granted dismissal for the breach of fiduciary duty claim as time-barred. The plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied due to insufficient evidence for numerosity, with leave to refile after discovery.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass CertificationMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFiduciary DutyPartial TerminationBenefit ForfeitureUnemploymentLabor Union
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 1988

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp.

David H. Miller and William W. Shaffer ("Miller and Shaffer") moved to intervene individually and as representatives of participants in the Jones & Laughlin Retirement Plan in an action filed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) against LTV Corporation and LTV Steel Company ("LTV"). LTV did not object to individual intervention but opposed class action intervention, arguing it would delay the PBGC action. The court granted the motion, allowing Miller and Shaffer to intervene both individually and as class representatives. The decision emphasized that Miller and Shaffer met the minimal burden of showing that PBGC's representation might be inadequate, as their interests, seeking full plan benefits, could diverge from PBGC's role as plan administrator. This opinion allows the class action to proceed under Rule 23(e), preventing dismissal or compromise without court approval.

InterventionERISAPension PlansBankruptcyClass ActionRule 24Rule 23(e)Adequate RepresentationPlan TerminationRestoration
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04070
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Cisnero v. Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund

Claimant Jeffrey Cisnero, an independent livery driver, sustained injuries when he was shot during a dispatch. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was initially disallowed by a WCLJ but later reversed by the Workers' Compensation Board, finding coverage through the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF). The carrier appealed, arguing misinterpretation of the relevant statutes, particularly Executive Law § 160-ddd (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Cisnero's injuries arose out of and in the course of providing covered services as an independent livery driver dispatched by an ILDBF member. The court found that the vehicle's attenuated affiliation with the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. did not alter ILDBF's liability.

Workers' CompensationLivery DriverIndependent ContractorBenefit FundAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1984

Krebbeks v. Regan

Petitioner, the widow of a Department of Transportation employee, applied for accidental death benefits after her husband's service-connected death in July 1981. Although her application for accidental death benefits was approved, these benefits were entirely offset by workers' compensation payments, leaving her with no current payments from the State Employees’ Retirement System. Subsequently, petitioner sought a lump-sum ordinary death benefit, which was denied because she was deemed eligible for accidental death benefits, even if offset. This appeal ensued after the denial of her application by a hearing officer and Special Term's concurrence. The court affirmed the denial, citing Retirement and Social Security Law § 60 (a) (3), which states an ordinary death benefit is not payable if an accidental death benefit is payable, with a narrow exception not applicable here.

Accidental Death BenefitsOrdinary Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation OffsetRetirement and Social Security LawStatutory InterpretationDeath Benefits EligibilityPublic Employee BenefitsAdministrative Law AppealDeath Benefit Offset
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claims of Noss

Claimants, employees of Lawrence Aviation Industries, Inc. and union members, commenced a strike in 1984. During the strike, they received weekly strike benefits from their union and later unemployment insurance benefits. The employer challenged these benefits, arguing that strike benefits were contingent on performing union duties, making claimants not 'totally unemployed,' and alleged willful misrepresentation. Both the Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that the strike benefits were not conditional and no misrepresentation occurred. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that strike benefits not conditioned on services are not considered remuneration under 12 NYCRR 490.2 (b) and that the Board's factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, should not be disturbed.

Unemployment BenefitsStrike BenefitsTotal UnemploymentWillful MisrepresentationLabor UnionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceConditional PaymentsNew York Labor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Broadway Maintenance Corp.

This case involves the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation (Broadway) disputing the termination date of Broadway's non-union employee pension plan. PBGC initiated the lawsuit to become the statutory trustee and sought to establish March 26, 1981, as the termination date. Broadway argued for an earlier, retroactive date. The court, guided by ERISA and the interests of the plan participants, rejected both parties' proposed dates. The judge formulated a test for involuntary terminations and ultimately established December 5, 1980, as the official termination date, citing the date PBGC first formalized its intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActInvoluntary TerminationTermination Date DisputeBankruptcyPlan Participants' InterestsStatutory TrusteeFiduciary DutyPension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
References
2
Case No. No. 14-CV-6449 (E.D.N.Y.)
Regular Panel Decision

AEI Life, LLC v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co.

This memorandum addresses whether a pending appeal in another circuit concerning a jurisdictional dismissal precludes the Eastern District of New York from exercising jurisdiction. The New Jersey District Court had previously dismissed an action by Lincoln Benefit Life Company (LBL) against AEI Life, LLC (AEI) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which LBL appealed. Subsequently, AEI initiated the current lawsuit in New York, seeking a declaration of policy validity and damages for alleged breach. The court concluded that the first-to-file rule is inapplicable here because the New Jersey court never secured jurisdiction. Additionally, a balance of convenience analysis favored New York as the appropriate venue, citing AEI's home forum, witness locations, and the locus of operative facts. Consequently, LBL's motion to dismiss or stay the action is denied, allowing the case to proceed in the Eastern District of New York.

JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionFirst-to-File RuleFinal Judgment RuleChoice of LawVenueDiversity JurisdictionInsurance PolicySTOLI Scheme
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 6,634 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