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

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Yarn Liquidation, Inc.

This memorandum addresses the priority of severance pay claims filed by fourteen former employees of SCT Yarns, Inc., a debtor in a Chapter 11 liquidation case. The court examines whether these claims qualify for third priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(3) for compensation earned within 90 days pre-petition, or first priority as administrative expenses under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1) for services rendered post-petition. Adopting the majority rule, the court determines that severance pay is an administrative expense only to the extent earned by service during the bankruptcy case and a third priority claim only if earned within the 90-day pre-petition period. The court calculates the amounts entitled to first priority as administrative expenses for eleven employees who continued service post-petition and acknowledges that the pre-petition severance pay for all fourteen employees may qualify for third priority, subject to a $4,000 limit.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 LiquidationSeverance PayPriority ClaimsAdministrative ExpensesEmployee CompensationBankruptcy Code § 507Pre-petition ClaimsPost-petition ClaimsCreditor Priority
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2009

Trzaska v. Allied Frozen Storage, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied the plaintiffs' motion to sever workers' compensation claims from their personal injury action. The appellate court, composed of Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Peradotto, Green, and Gorski, JJ., unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the denial of the severance motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSeverance MotionAppellate ReviewSupreme CourtErie CountyOrder Denial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balding v. Tennessee Department of Employment Security

This case involves former employees of Wilson & Company who sought unemployment compensation benefits after their employment was terminated due to a plant closure. They had received severance pay according to a contract between their union, United Packing House Workers of America, and Wilson & Company. Initial administrative decisions and the Chancery Court denied benefits, ruling that severance pay disqualified them. The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed whether severance pay constituted 'wages' for the post-severance period, disqualifying them under the Tennessee Employment Security Law. The Court held that severance pay was 'with respect to' personal services rendered prior to the severance date, not after. It concluded that the appellants were 'unemployed' as of the severance date and were eligible for benefits. Consequently, the Court reversed the decision of the chancellor.

Unemployment Benefits EligibilitySeverance PayWages DefinitionTennessee Employment Security LawStatutory InterpretationCollective Bargaining AgreementPlant ClosureAppellate ReviewDisqualification CriteriaEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Robinson v. National Vacuum Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied the plaintiffs' motion to sever workers’ compensation claims from their personal injury action. The appeal was heard by Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the original order, concurring with the reasons stated in the Supreme Court's decision.

AppealSeveranceWorkers' Compensation ClaimsPersonal Injury ActionMotion DenialSupreme Court OrderAffirmationJudicial ReviewErie County
References
0
Case No. SCR No. 40/12; SCR No. 41/12
Regular Panel Decision

Norris v. Social Services Employee Union 371

This small claims action, consolidated for trial, involved two former union staff members, Aubrey Norris and Reuben Adeshuko, suing SSEU Local 371 for alleged underpayment of severance. Claimants argued that a long-standing union practice entitled them to three weeks' severance pay upon termination, but they only received two weeks after new leadership took over on May 2, 2011. The defendant contended that the standard policy was two weeks' severance and that the new leadership formally instituted this policy on May 4, 2011. The court found no written severance policy, which violated Labor Law § 195, and concluded that the credible evidence supported the claimants' reliance on a three-week severance practice. The judgment was entered in favor of the claimants for the outstanding severance amount plus interest.

Severance Pay DisputeUnion EmploymentLabor Law ViolationStatute of FraudsOral Policy EnforcementEmployment TerminationWorkers' RightsAFSCME RegulationsConsolidated CasesNew York Courts
References
2
Case No. E2014-01775-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2015

Jimmy L. Hensley v. Cocke Farmers Cooperative

Jimmy L. Hensley sued his former employer, Cocke Farmer’s Cooperative, to enforce a severance agreement. The agreement provided for severance pay if Hensley's employment was terminated without cause. The trial court granted Hensley's motion for summary judgment, finding the agreement valid, enforceable, and supported by adequate consideration, and awarded him severance benefits. The Cooperative appealed, arguing the contract was vague, lacked consideration, and the severance constituted an unenforceable penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the agreement was clear, continuing employment was sufficient consideration, and the severance benefits were not liquidated damages or a penalty, thus upholding the award for Hensley.

Severance AgreementAt-Will EmploymentContract EnforceabilitySummary JudgmentAdequate ConsiderationLiquidated DamagesMitigation of DamagesCorporate GovernanceBoard of DirectorsEmployment Contracts
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blum v. General Electric Co.

This is a consolidated action brought by 211 plaintiffs, both American and German, against Lucent Technologies, Inc., General Electric Company, Raytheon Company, and Honeywell International, Inc. The plaintiffs, members of German or American armed forces, allege exposure to dangerous levels of ionizing radiation from radar systems, causing various types of cancers. Defendants moved to sever and dismiss the German plaintiffs' claims based on the doctrine of *forum non conveniens*, arguing that Germany is a more convenient forum. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It denied dismissal for German plaintiffs who alleged a connection to Fort Bliss or other U.S. military bases, citing U.S. local interest, but granted dismissal for German plaintiffs with no alleged connection to the United States.

Forum Non ConveniensSeveranceDismissalConsolidated ActionGerman PlaintiffsAmerican PlaintiffsRadar SystemsIonizing RadiationProduct LiabilityMilitary Training
References
32
Case No. C-3773-95-G
Regular Panel Decision

Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner Ex Rel. Pitzner

John C. Pitzner sustained severe head injuries after falling from a roof while repairing an air conditioning unit on Marathon Corporation's property. His guardian, Steven Pitzner, sued Marathon and other entities for premises liability and negligence; Marathon proceeded as the sole defendant at trial. A jury found Marathon entirely liable for over $5.9 million in damages, which Marathon appealed. The appellate court upheld the jury's findings on duty, causation, and sole responsibility, but modified the judgment by applying a settlement credit of $700,000 and recalculating prejudgment interest. The case affirmed the modified judgment, addressing issues of venue, evidentiary rulings, and the application of legal codes.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityNegligenceAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyVenue DisputeEvidentiary RulingsSettlement CreditPrejudgment Interest
References
80
Case No. 2014-1083 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2017

VNP Acupuncture, P.C. v. American Commerce Ins. Co.

Plaintiff VNP Acupuncture, P.C., acting as an assignee, initiated this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for services provided to eight assignors following three separate motor vehicle accidents. The defendant, American Commerce Insurance Company, cross-moved to sever several causes of action (first, third through fifth, and seventh), arguing they stemmed from different accidents and involved distinct legal and factual questions. The Civil Court of the City of New York initially denied the defendant's severance request. Upon appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, determined that the claims related to the severed causes of action, specifically concerning lack of medical necessity, were factually and legally dissimilar to the remaining claims about whether injuries arose from an insured incident. Consequently, the Appellate Term reversed the lower court's decision and granted the defendant's cross-motion to sever the specified causes of action.

No-fault benefitsMotor Vehicle AccidentsSeverance of ActionsMedical NecessityIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureAssigneeInsurance LawTrial Court Reversal
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,901 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