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. FRE 0191108
Regular
Oct 01, 2007

RICK L. REITZ vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO, CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC.

This case involves a worker's compensation claim where the applicant, a Corrections Officer, sustained industrial injuries to his low back and legs, leading to significant permanent disability. Despite completing a prior vocational rehabilitation plan, the applicant was approved for a second plan and awarded vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) for a period when benefits were initially denied. The defendant appealed, arguing the second plan was unwarranted and the VRMA award inequitable, but the Board denied reconsideration, upholding the award based on existing case law, though expressing concern over delays.

Second vocational rehabilitation planVocational rehabilitation maintenance allowanceVRMACounty Service Disability RetirementRehabilitation Unit determinationProbation TechnicianMedical feasibilityIndustrial injuryLow backLegs
References
1
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

Carollo v. Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Plan

This case concerns Calogero Carollo's action against the Cement and Concrete Workers District Council Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees under ERISA. Carollo alleged the Plan's pension benefit accrual formula violated the Act by unlawfully "backloading" benefits and having an invalid break-in-service provision, thereby failing to meet minimum accrual rates. Defendants moved to stay or for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred, but the court denied these motions, finding the claims timely. The court granted partial summary judgment to Carollo on his first claim, declaring certain Plan provisions invalid due to violations of ERISA's minimum accrual rates for post-Act service. However, his second claim regarding pre-Act service accrual was denied partial summary judgment due to unresolved factual disputes.

ERISAPension PlanBenefit AccrualFiduciary DutyBackloadingStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentPrimary JurisdictionBreak in ServicePlan Amendment
References
24
Case No. FICSUR060012
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Rehabilitation of Frontier Insurance

This opinion addresses the proposed plan of continued rehabilitation for Frontier Insurance Company, submitted by the Superintendent of Financial Services. The core legal question is whether surety claims are entitled to class two priority status under Insurance Law § 7434 (a) (1) (ii), which the Rehabilitator's plan sought to exclude from "Claims under Policies." The court concludes that surety claims are indeed "claims under policies" and thus are entitled to class two priority in liquidation, based on statutory text, legislative intent, and New York appellate decisions. Consequently, the court disapproved the Rehabilitator's plan because it provided less favorable treatment to surety claimants than they would receive in liquidation, contravening federal constitutional law principles. The matter is remitted to the Rehabilitator to propose a revised plan or apply for an order of liquidation.

Insurance LawRehabilitation ProceedingSurety BondsPriority ClassesLiquidationInsurance ContractsStatutory InterpretationFinancial ServicesInsolvencyClaims Prioritization
References
14
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00867
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2019

Matter of Berg v. Planning Bd. of the City of Glen Cove

This appeal arises from a hybrid proceeding and action challenging determinations by the Planning Board of the City of Glen Cove regarding a major waterfront redevelopment project. Petitioners, residents of Glen Cove and surrounding areas, sought to review the Planning Board's 2011 adoption of a final environmental impact statement and a special use permit, as well as its 2015 resolution finding no need for a supplemental EIS for an amended plan. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the challenge to the 2011 determination as time-barred and the challenge to the 2015 determination on the merits. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the statute of limitations barred the review of the 2011 determination and that the Planning Board had taken a 'hard look' at environmental concerns for the 2015 determination, thus upholding the dismissal.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAPlanning BoardZoningLand UseDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefStatute of LimitationsEstoppelHybrid Proceeding
References
31
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. 2017 NY Slip Op 06273 [153 AD3d 823]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2017

Matter of Green Earth Farms Rockland, LLC v. Town of Haverstraw Planning Bd.

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment concerning a development project in the Towns of Haverstraw and Ramapo. The petitioners challenged the Town of Haverstraw Planning Board's determination that a second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was not required for a proposed commercial development, specifically a large convenience store with 16 gas pumps. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, which found that the Planning Board failed to adequately assess the environmental impact of the proposed gas station, thus annulling the SEQRA determination and site plan approval and remitting the matter for further proceedings. The appeal by the Town of Haverstraw Building Department was dismissed as not aggrieved, and the petition by John McDowell was dismissed due to lack of standing.

Environmental ReviewSEQRASite Plan ApprovalZoning AmendmentGas Station DevelopmentStandingJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionPlanning Board DiscretionEnvironmental Impact Statement
References
20
Case No. AHM 0091706 AHM 0102322
Regular
Aug 22, 2007

MATTHEW MCCORD vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and reversed the prior award of vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) for applicant Matthew McCord. The Board found that McCord's liability for vocational rehabilitation services ended on October 17, 2003, the scheduled termination date of his rehabilitation plan. McCord's failure to complete the plan, despite receiving one, and his subsequent return to work as a court bailiff, rendered him ineligible for VRMA after that date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational RehabilitationCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataNotice of Potential Eligibility (NOPE)Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Qualified Injured Worker (QIW)Rehabilitation PlanMedical RestrictionsRetirement Board
References
1
Case No. 01-cv-7920 (AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2006

Hirt v. Equitable Retirement Plan for Employees

This Second Supplementary Decision and Order for Judgment addresses three key issues: the effective date of Equitable's cash balance plan, the applicable statute of limitations, and the implementation of prior rulings. The court established January 18, 1993, as the effective date for the cash balance plan. Crucially, it ruled that the named plaintiffs' class action, filed on August 23, 2001, was time-barred under New York's six-year statute of limitations, as their cause of action accrued on January 18, 1993. However, the decision clarified that class members not directly party to this lawsuit are not bound by this limitation and retain their right to pursue claims. Finally, the plaintiffs' request for an ombudsman role in judgment implementation was denied.

ERISACash Balance PlanStatute of LimitationsClass ActionEmployee BenefitsPension PlanNotice RequirementsDe-grandfatheringFederal Discovery RuleRepudiation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1995

In re Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc.

Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc., providing medical and vocational rehabilitative services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions, finding that specialists hired by Jordan were employees, not independent contractors, between 1989 and 1991. The court reviewed whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors included Jordan's control over recruitment, screening, compensation, billing, and contractual restrictions on specialists. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Jordan exercised sufficient overall control to establish an employer-employee relationship and thus was liable for the contributions.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRehabilitation ServicesLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceControl TestJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeDepartment of Labor
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,277 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