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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merced Irrigation District v. Barclays Bank PLC

Merced Irrigation District sued Barclays Bank PLC, alleging market manipulation in electricity index prices, violating federal antitrust laws (Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2), California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and New York's unjust enrichment law. Barclays moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found Merced had standing and that fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations. The motion was granted for the Section 1 Sherman Act claim due to a lack of alleged concerted action, and for the unjust enrichment claim due to the absence of a direct relationship between the parties. However, the motion was denied for the Section 2 Sherman Act monopolization claim and the UCL claim, allowing those to proceed. Merced was given leave to amend the dismissed claims.

Antitrust LawMarket ManipulationElectricity MarketsSherman Act Section 1Sherman Act Section 2California Unfair Competition LawUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFraudulent Concealment
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moritt v. Governor of New York

This memorandum decision addresses the constitutionality of New York State Election Law, specifically subdivision 5 of section 136 and subdivision 2 of section 131, which pertain to geographical distribution requirements for signatures needed to place a candidate on a primary ballot. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the State may constitutionally mandate a showing of state-wide support without imposing a substantial burden on primary ballot access. The requirement of 100 signatures from each of 20 Congressional districts was deemed not unconstitutionally onerous, serving the legitimate state interest of preventing ballot manipulation and ensuring broad-based numerical and geographical support. The decision also found no merit in the challenge to subdivision 2 of section 131 of the Election Law, asserting it does not violate the one man-one vote principle or the New York State Constitution.

ConstitutionalityElection LawPrimary BallotSignature RequirementsGeographical DistributionEqual ProtectionOne Man-One VoteBallot AccessState InterestPolitical Candidate
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 1969

Claim of Mangianeli v. New York State Brooklyn State Hospital

This case concerns an appeal from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision regarding disability benefits for a claimant. The central issue revolves around the proper application of subdivision 2 of section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law to determine the claimant’s average weekly wage. The claimant, a head nurse, voluntarily reduced her work schedule from a five-day to a three-day week in 1964 to care for her mother, subsequently suffering occupational accidents in 1965 and 1967. The Board had incorrectly applied subdivision 2, deeming her absences involuntary, and set her average weekly wage at $127.40. The appellate court found this application erroneous, asserting that subdivision 2 is not applicable when a claimant deliberately limits their work hours. Consequently, the decision was reversed, and the case was remitted for the Board to apply subdivision 3 of section 14 and duly consider the claimant's voluntary work limitation.

Disability benefitsAverage weekly wageWorkmen's Compensation Law Section 14Voluntary limitation of employmentApportionment of benefitsOccupational accidentsRemandStatutory interpretation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,961 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