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

Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. United States (In Re Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc.)

This case addresses whether a New York Lien Law "trust fund" beneficiary’s claim to priority payment under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d) is preempted by ERISA. The applicant, The Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry and its Participating Funds (JIB), sought priority payment from funds held by the debtor, asserting a claim for unpaid benefits. The defendant, A-J Contracting, Inc. (A-J), challenged this, arguing ERISA preemption, specifically that the Lien Law provided an "alternative enforcement mechanism" forbidden by ERISA. The court reviewed federal preemption doctrine and ERISA's objectives, ultimately concluding that Section 71(2)(d) does not create such a mechanism as it confirms existing employer liability rather than shifting it. Therefore, the court found that ERISA does not preempt JIB's assertion of priority rights under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d).

ERISA preemptionLien Law trust fundpriority disputeunpaid employee benefitsbankruptcy estatedebtor liabilityconstruction subcontractsfederal supremacystatutory interpretationcollective bargaining agreement
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giordano v. Forest City Ratner Companies

Brian Giordano, a carpenter, was injured at a construction site when a sheet of plywood struck him. He sued F.C. Foley Square Associates, LLC, and FCR Construction Services, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on Industrial Code sections 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a) and 23-2.4. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims based on both sections. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal regarding 12 NYCRR 23-2.4, finding it inapplicable to poured concrete construction. However, the court reversed the dismissal concerning 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a), stating that the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because the Court of Appeals had previously reversed a similar precedent regarding the applicability of this section to incomplete forms.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodePlywood InjuryConcrete WorkFlooring RequirementsAppellate DecisionPrima Facie Entitlement
References
6
Case No. 02 Civ. 3288(DLC), 03 Civ. 0167, 03 Civ. 0168, 03 Civ. 0169, 03 Civ. 0170, 03 Civ. 0171, 03 Civ. 0337, 03 Civ. 0890, 03 Civ. 0891, 03 Civ. 0892, 03 Civ. 1283, 03 Civ. 1284, 03 Civ. 2839, 03 Civ. 3859, 03 Civ. 3860, 03 Civ. 4499, 03 Civ. 4500, 03 Civ. 6226, 03 Civ. 6227, 03 Civ. 6592, 03 Civ. 7297, 03 Civ. 7806, 03 Civ. 8269, 03 Civ. 8270, 03 Civ. 8271, 03 Civ. 8923, 03 Civ. 8924, 03 Civ. 9168, 03 Civ. 9400, 03 Civ. 9401, 03 Civ. 9402, 03 Civ. 9823, 03 Civ. 9824
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2004

In Re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation

This case addresses motions for reconsideration and dismissal in a multi-district litigation stemming from the WorldCom, Inc. financial collapse. The court affirmed that Section 13 of the Securities Act, not the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's Section 804, dictates the statute of limitations for Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims, as these actions were deliberately pleaded as strict liability/negligence rather than fraud. It also held that the 'American Pipe' tolling doctrine does not apply to individual actions filed independently before class certification, leading to many time-barred claims. Furthermore, the court upheld the dismissal of a Section 12(a)(2) claim regarding a December 2000 private placement, affirming that such placements fall outside the scope of Section 12(a)(2). Requests for leave to amend complaints were largely denied due to lack of diligence and bad faith in strategic pleading.

Securities LitigationClass ActionStatute of LimitationsSarbanes-Oxley ActSecurities Act of 1933American Pipe Tolling DoctrineRule 15(c) Relation-BackPrivate PlacementMotion to DismissMotion for Reconsideration
References
56
Case No. ADJ9285089
Regular
Aug 24, 2016

ANA RAMIREZ FARIAS vs. ABLE BUILDING MAINTENANCE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board affirmed an arbitrator's decision that applicant Ana Ramirez Farias must transfer medical care to her employer's exclusive provider network, despite her continued treatment with Dr. Arthur Harris. The majority found that the collective bargaining agreement's provisions on medical treatment, negotiated under Labor Code section 3201.5, take precedence over general Medical Provider Network (MPN) statutes like section 4603.2(a)(2). The dissenting opinion argued that the collective bargaining agreement diminishes the applicant's statutory right to treatment and that section 4603.2(a)(2) should apply due to the agreement's silence on transfer of care disputes.

Labor Code section 3201.7Labor Code section 3201.5(b)Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)self-procure treatmentmedical controlexclusive provider networkcarve-out agreementMedical Provider Network (MPN)collective bargaining agreementagreed list of providers
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

District 2, a marine engineers union, sued Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. (PRMMI) to compel arbitration after PRMMI terminated their collective bargaining agreement and discharged union members. PRMMI argued the agreement was terminable at will, while District 2 maintained it was still in effect, terminable only by the union. The court found both interpretations unpersuasive, ruling the agreement's extension implied a reasonable period for good faith negotiations and required reasonable notice for termination. Therefore, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and PRMMI's motion to dismiss, ordering a factual hearing to determine the effectiveness of the termination, while making accrued benefit claims immediately arbitrable.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract TerminationLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionUnionEmployerGood Faith NegotiationsReasonable Notice
References
6
Case No. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. ADJ4205101
Regular
Jul 23, 2013

SUSAN HECHT vs. WARNER BROTHERS, INC.

This case involved an applicant claiming an industrial injury to her psyche, digestive system, and head, stemming from a change in overtime policy. The defendant argued the psychological injury was non-compensable under Labor Code sections 3208.3(b)(2) and 3208.3(h), as it arose from a good faith personnel action. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's award, adopting the WCJ's report which found the injury compensable despite the personnel action. The Board also ordered the matter returned to the WCJ to determine the reasonable value of medical treatment provided by lien claimants.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPsycheDigestive SystemHeadSleep DisorderTemporary DisabilityEmployment Development DepartmentLien Claimants
References
0
Case No. VEN 104138
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

CHANDRA DOSHI vs. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA by BROADSPIRE CLAIMS SERVICES

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of a decision that denied a psychological injury claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to uncertainty regarding the administrative law judge's application of Labor Code sections 5402(b) (presumption of compensability for timely denial) and 3208.3 (threshold for psychiatric injury). The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify whether the section 5402 presumption applies and, if not, to re-evaluate the psychiatric injury claim under section 3208.3 with a clear explanation of the reasoning.

Labor Code section 5402(b)presumption of compensabilitypsychiatric injurythreshold of compensabilitypredominant causeactual events of employmentcompromise and releaselien claimantcumulative traumamedical treatment
References
1
Case No. ADJ7329234; ADJ7432894; ADJ7434559; ADJ7433683
Regular
Dec 02, 2014

KATHY WASSON vs. COUNTY OF PLUMAS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior denial of industrial injury for psyche and heart claims. While applicant sustained a compensable psychiatric injury due to workplace events, compensation is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(h) as it was substantially caused by good faith personnel actions. However, applicant's heart injury, presumed compensable under Labor Code section 3212, remains compensable as the presumption was not rebutted and section 3208.3(h) does not apply. Further proceedings will address the sleep disorder claim and other deferred issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffPsychiatric injuryHypertensionSleep dysfunctionGood faith personnel actionLabor Code section 3208.3(h)PresumptionLabor Code section 3212Heart trouble
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Westchester Radiological Associates, P.C. v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a group of hospital-based radiologists, sued Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Inc., alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and the New York Donnelly Act. The radiologists claimed unlawful restraint of trade, monopolization, and price fixing due to Empire's policy preventing direct billing for professional radiological services. Empire moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing failure to state a claim under Section 1, lack of standing for Section 2 claims, and consequently, dismissal of the pendent state law claim. The court denied Empire's motion in its entirety, determining that Empire acted as an intervening "third force" in a non-exempt relationship and that the radiologists had direct standing due to the precisely intended nature of their alleged injuries.

Antitrust LawSherman ActDonnelly ActMonopolyPrice FixingHealth InsuranceRadiologyBlue Cross Blue ShieldLegal StandingMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 4,980 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