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

Plumbing Industry Board, Plumbing Local Union No. 1 v. L & L Masons, Inc.

Plaintiff Plumbing Industry Board (PIB) sued E.W. Howell and American Home Assurance Construction Co., Inc., seeking unpaid fringe benefit contributions under New York's Lien Law and as a third-party beneficiary to a contract. The defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted PIB's state law claims and moved for summary judgment. PIB cross-moved for a remand to state court. The court determined that ERISA preempted both New York Lien Law § 5 and PIB's common law contract claims, ruling that the Lien Law created an obligation not permitted under ERISA and the contract claim created a new theory of recovery. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied PIB's motion to remand, and dismissed all claims.

ERISA pre-emptionNew York Lien LawFringe benefit contributionsSummary judgmentThird-party beneficiary contractCollective bargaining agreementEmployee benefit planSurety bondSubcontractor defaultFederal jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00606 [191 AD3d 1074]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Pisarski v. Accurate Plumbing & Heating Co.

Claimant Michael Pisarski established a workers' compensation claim for occupational bilateral knee and shoulder injuries after retiring as a union plumber. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately set the date of disablement as July 12, 2016, and a Worker's Compensation Law Judge ruled Norguard Insurance Company, which covered the employer during Pisarski's last employment, was the liable carrier, as no active policy was found on the disablement date. Norguard appealed, distinguishing its case from Matter of Cammarata, where the employer had ceased business. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board erred by not determining the business status of Accurate Plumbing and Heating Co. on the date of disablement. This determination is crucial to establish whether Accurate Plumbing was required to maintain an insurance policy or if the Uninsured Employers Fund should be responsible. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDate of DisablementInsurance Carrier LiabilityUninsured Employers FundAppellate ReviewRemittalBusiness Status DeterminationPolicy CoverageKnee Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp.

The Plaintiffs, comprising ERISA funds and their trustees, sued Delta Plumbing and Heating Corporation for delinquent fringe benefits and later added New York Surety Company as a defendant on its bond. Following Delta's bankruptcy, New York Surety became the sole defendant and moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant argued that a surety is not an 'employer' under ERISA and that the court lacked pendent party jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court denied the motion, holding that the 'plain meaning' of ERISA's definition of 'employer' could extend to a surety that acts in the interest of an employer by guaranteeing contributions. Furthermore, the court found that under the legal framework applicable to this pre-1990 action, ERISA's statutory language did not confer pendent party jurisdiction.

ERISA EnforcementSurety LiabilityDelinquent ContributionsSubject Matter JurisdictionPendent Party JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionCollective BargainingMultiemployer Pension PlansEmployee Benefits SecurityFederal Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. 10-CV-0347
Regular Panel Decision

Sentry Insurance v. Brand Management Inc.

Sentry Insurance initiated actions against Brand Management, Inc., Budget Services, Inc., and Hershel Weber for claims including breach of contract and alter ego liability, arising from workers' compensation insurance policies. Brand and Budget, controlled by Weber, allegedly breached the casualty agreement by failing to pay Sentry, leading to significant unpaid claims. The defendants engaged in recalcitrant discovery behavior, resulting in a preclusion order against their alter ego defense. The Court found Weber completely dominated Brand and Budget, using this domination to undercapitalize them and render them judgment-proof, thereby committing a wrong against Sentry. Consequently, the Court granted Sentry's motion for partial summary judgment on breach of contract against Brand and Budget, and on alter ego liability against Weber, while denying the defendants' cross-motion.

Breach of ContractAlter Ego LiabilityCorporate Veil PiercingSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCorporate UndercapitalizationInter-company Fund TransfersDiscovery SanctionsCorporate FormalitiesInsurance Dispute
References
30
Case No. ADJ10102441
Regular
Jul 20, 2016

MARTHA ALAS vs. WOOD RANCH BARBECUE & GRILL, SENTRY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Sentry Insurance's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior award based on a stipulated average weekly wage. Sentry argued the stipulation was based on a mutual mistake of fact regarding the calculation of the applicant's average weekly wage. The Board found no mutual mistake, as both parties agreed to the figure, and Sentry's subsequent realization of error was unilateral. Therefore, good cause to set aside the stipulation and award was not established.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeAverage Weekly WageStipulationMutual Mistake of FactGood CauseTemporary Total DisabilityAttorney's Fees
References
0
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01871 [236 AD3d 598]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Mondrangon v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.

Plaintiff Adan Mondrangon initiated an action against The Trustees of Columbia University after allegedly tripping over plumber's net and pipes in the basement of a university building. Columbia University subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp., their plumbing contractor, seeking indemnification and alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, attributing responsibility for the hazardous condition to Absolute. Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp. moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, presenting evidence that their recent work did not involve the materials cited. However, the court found triable issues of fact arising from conflicting deposition testimonies, particularly concerning whether Absolute had worked on the basement project and could have been the source of the materials. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying Absolute's motion for summary judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, concluding that credibility issues were for a jury to determine.

Premises liabilitypersonal injurysummary judgmentindemnificationbreach of contractthird-party claimconflicting testimonytriable issues of factAppellate DivisionNew York courts
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2013

Callari ex rel. Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael Callari and opt-in plaintiff George Ruggiero brought a collective action against Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc. (BPS) and co-executors of Richard Blackman's estate, alleging unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Callari was an exempt employee and Ruggiero's claims were time-barred or waived. The Court granted summary judgment against Ruggiero's FLSA claim due to waiver but allowed his NYLL claim to proceed. Callari's FLSA claim survived, as the Court found genuine issues of material fact regarding his exempt employee status. A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiffs was denied, affirming the prior rulings.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawOvertime WagesExempt Employee StatusSummary JudgmentMotion for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsWaiver of RightsCollective ActionAssistant Manager Duties
References
67
Case No. ADJ8596014
Regular
Nov 07, 2018

DION GEORGE vs. KJI PLUMBING, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a $\$ 750$ sanction imposed by a WCJ against defense counsel and KJI Plumbing for defense counsel's failure to appear at a hearing. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the failure to appear was due to defense counsel's negligence, not willful misconduct. Consequently, the Board reduced the sanction to $\$ 250$ and removed KJI Plumbing as a liable party, solely sanctioning defense counsel and his law office. The Board cautioned that future failures to appear could establish a pattern justifying larger sanctions.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsWCJDefense CounselJointly and SeverallyUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of ReadinessLabor Code § 5813WCAB Rule 10561
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Progressive Northern Insurance Co. v. Sentry Insurance A Mutual Co.

Progressive Northern Insurance Company initiated an arbitration against Sentry Insurance A Mutual Company to recover first-party benefits paid to its insured following an automobile accident. After an initial arbitration claim (priority-of-payment) was denied, Progressive commenced a second arbitration based on a loss-transfer claim for the same reimbursement. Sentry raised the affirmative defense of res judicata, which the arbitrator upheld, denying Progressive's claim. Progressive then petitioned the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to vacate this arbitration award, but the petition was denied. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the arbitrator properly exercised its authority in applying res judicata, as both claims arose from the same transaction despite different legal theories.

Res JudicataArbitration Award VacaturInsurance ReimbursementAutomobile Accident ClaimLoss Transfer ClaimPriority-of-Payment ClaimAppellate ReviewSupreme Court NassauCPLR Article 75Arbitration Forum
References
24
Case No. ADJ3133627 (SAL 0114355) ADJ1802214 (SAL 0110847) ADJ3324036 (SAL 0111146)
Regular
Oct 16, 2012

DAVID TANNAHILL vs. SKIP'S AUTO PARTS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Sentry Insurance's petition for reconsideration of a previous Appeals Board decision. The Board denied Sentry's petition, upholding its prior ruling that the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) is entitled to reimbursement for reasonable bill review costs, not the specific $35,152.88 initially claimed. The amount of reimbursement remains to be determined by the workers' compensation judge if the parties cannot resolve it themselves. This decision allows for further development of the evidentiary record to ensure substantial justice.

CIGASkip's Auto PartsSuperior National Insurance CompanySentry Insurance CompanyPetition for ReconsiderationBill Review CostsReimbursementAdministrative Law JudgeOpinion and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 218 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