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

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. CA 10-02164
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2011

SIEGL, SALLY v. NEW PLAN EXCEL REALTY TRUST, INC.

Sally Siegl sustained injuries after falling in a parking lot owned by New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. The fall was allegedly due to a depression in the parking lot caused by settlement of crushed stones used by AALCO Septic & Sewer, Inc., which had repaired a water main two months prior. New Plan brought a third-party action against AALCO for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court granted AALCO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the common-law indemnification claim, finding New Plan also negligent. The majority also affirmed the dismissal of the contribution claim, concluding AALCO did not owe an independent duty of care or launch a force of harm. A dissenting opinion argued that there was a question of fact regarding AALCO creating the dangerous condition, thus precluding summary judgment on the contribution claim.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewWater Main RepairParking LotHazardous Condition
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Prescription Plan, Inc. v. American Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO Health Plan

This case involves appeals and a cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County. Defendant American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO Health Plan (APWU-HP) appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment concerning the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth causes of action. Defendant Administrative Consultants, Inc. (ACI) appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment regarding the tenth and eleventh causes of action. The plaintiff cross-appealed the partial dismissal of the first, third, and sixth causes of action. The appellate court reversed the order for the defendants, granting their motions for summary judgment and dismissing all causes of action asserted against them. The order was affirmed insofar as cross-appealed by the plaintiff, upholding the partial dismissals against the plaintiff.

Summary JudgmentContract DisputeOral RepresentationsStatute of FraudsEquitable EstoppelAppellate ProcedureDismissal of ClaimsBreach of ContractMootness DoctrineAuthority to Contract
References
7
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
Nov 13, 2009

Amalgamated Lithographers of America v. Unz & Co.

The Amalgamated Lithographers of America Lithographic Industry Pension Plan (the Plan) sued Unz & Co., Inc. (Unz) for withdrawal liability under ERISA and MPPAA. The Plan sought summary judgment, which Unz opposed and cross-moved for summary judgment or to compel arbitration. The dispute arose after Scott Printing Corp., a company under common control with Unz, withdrew from the Plan in 2003, incurring a withdrawal liability of $765,474. The court found that Unz received adequate notice of the liability in May 2008, despite Unz's arguments about the adequacy of notice and the timeliness of arbitration demands. The court ruled that Unz had forfeited its right to contest the liability amount or demand arbitration due to its failure to comply with statutory deadlines. Consequently, the Plan's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Unz's cross-motion was denied, making Unz liable for the full withdrawal liability plus interest and liquidated damages.

ERISAMPPAAPension PlanWithdrawal LiabilityMultiemployer PlanSummary JudgmentCommon ControlEquitable TollingLachesArbitration
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laflamme v. Carpenters Local 370 Pension Plan

Plaintiff Michael LaFlamme initiated a class action against the Carpenters Local #370 Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) concerning the plan's 'freezing rule' for benefit accrual after a 'break in service.' LaFlamme sought a judicial declaration that this rule contravenes ERISA's minimum accrual standards, along with a reformation of the pension plan and recalculation of benefits for all affected class members. The court, presided over by District Judge Hurd, evaluated the motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b), finding that the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were met. Consequently, the motion for class certification was granted, establishing a class comprised of all plan participants, active or retired, who experienced a service break resulting in frozen benefit accrual rates. The decision also outlined procedures for providing notice to the newly certified class members, while deferring detailed adjudication of defenses like statute of limitations and exhaustion of remedies to later dispositive motions.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass ActionBenefit AccrualFreezing RuleBreaks in ServiceClass CertificationRule 23(a)Rule 23(b)Federal Civil Procedure
References
49
Case No. 02 Civ.0032 VM
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2004

Campanella v. MASON TENDERS'DIST. COUNCIL PENSION

The Campanella brothers, retired participants, sued the Mason Tenders' District Council Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees, alleging multiple ERISA violations regarding pension benefit accrual, vesting standards, and credit for workers' compensation. They challenged the Plan's accrual ranges, anti-backloading provisions, and the policy regarding service credit during disability. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' motion, finding that the Plan adhered to ERISA requirements on all substantive points, including minimum accrual standards and vesting. Additionally, claims for interest on delayed benefits and penalties against the Trustees for document production were denied, with the court concluding that no unreasonable delay or bad faith was demonstrated.

ERISAPension BenefitsDisability PensionAccrued BenefitsVesting StandardsStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationFiduciary DutyPlan Administration
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1992

PINE BARRENS v. Planning Bd.

This case addresses whether the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) mandates a cumulative impact statement for over 200 proposed development projects in the Central Pine Barrens region of Long Island. The Central Pine Barrens is a vital ecological area, serving as the sole natural source of drinking water for millions and harboring numerous endangered species, leading to various protective legislations. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's ruling, determining that a mandatory cumulative impact study under SEQRA is not applicable here because there is no overarching governmental 'plan' for development in the region, only general protective policies. The court emphasized that comprehensive planning for this area should be conducted by the Long Island Regional Planning Board as outlined in ECL article 55, rather than through individual SEQRA assessments. It also noted the significant delay in the Regional Planning Board's action, urging legislative intervention to address this pressing environmental concern.

Environmental LawSEQRACumulative ImpactPine BarrensSuffolk CountyLong IslandAquifer ProtectionLand Use PlanningState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning Board
References
6
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2000

Hector v. Wal-Mart Group Health Plan

Plaintiff Garfield Hector sued Wal-Mart Associates Health and Welfare Plan after being denied coverage for medical bills resulting from an automobile accident. Plaintiff alleged timely claim submission in May 1995, while the defendant disputed this, claiming submission in April/May 1999, which exceeded the plan's 12-month limit. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Plan, and also failed to submit the claim within the stipulated timeframe and commence the lawsuit within two years. The plaintiff failed to oppose the motion or appear for oral argument. The court found that the plaintiff did not exhaust the administrative review procedures mandated by the Plan, which explicitly requires pursuing these remedies before initiating legal action. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsHealth PlanClaim ExhaustionSummary Judgment MotionPlan AdministrationDenial of BenefitsTimely FilingFederal JurisdictionProcedural Dismissal
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 7,273 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