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
Jun 20, 1996

Trustees of the Health & Welfare & the Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards v. Schlesinger Bros.

Plaintiffs, Trustees of the Health and Welfare and Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards and Esther Maiese, filed an action against Schlesinger Brothers, Inc. and the International Leather Goods, Plastics, Novelty and Service Workers Union, alleging violations of ERISA and LMRA. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that defendants breached ERISA's 'sole benefit rule' by diverting contributions from the FJBC Funds to the International's Funds. They also alleged that Schlesinger violated the collective bargaining agreement under LMRA. The court determined that Schlesinger did not act as a fiduciary under ERISA and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the LMRA claim against the employer. Similarly, the court found that the International union was not subject to fiduciary duties under ERISA when engaged in collective bargaining. Consequently, the court granted Schlesinger's motion to dismiss the entire complaint and the International's motion to dismiss the ERISA claim, leaving only the LMRA claim against the International viable.

ERISALMRAFiduciary DutyCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissPension FundsHealth and Welfare FundsUnionEmployer LiabilityStanding
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ames v. Group Health Inc.

Plaintiffs, including trustees John Ames and Michael Pantony of the United Welfare Fund-Welfare Division (UWF) and participant Fred Tremarcke, sued Group Health Incorporated (GHI) under ERISA and HIPAA. They alleged GHI illegally discriminated against Tremarcke by denying his health coverage after he went on disability leave, arguing it violated HIPAA's anti-discrimination provisions and breached the insurance policy. Tremarcke's employer, Classic Chevrolet, continued making health contributions on his behalf, and a 'Side Letter of Understanding' with his union attempted to maintain his 'active employee' status. The court ultimately ruled in favor of GHI, finding that Tremarcke did not meet the eligibility requirements of the UWF-GHI plan, which required working over 20 hours per week, and that the 'Side Letter' could not unilaterally alter GHI's contractual obligations. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment was granted, dismissing the second and third causes of action.

ERISAHIPAACOBRAHealth InsuranceDisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractMulti-employer FundCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
6
Case No. No. 95 Civ. 0119 (HB)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1996

TRUSTEES OF HEALTH & WELFARE v. Schlesinger Bros.

Plaintiffs, Trustees of the Health and Welfare and Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards and Esther Maiese, filed an action against Schlesinger Brothers, Inc. and The International Leather Goods, Plastics, Novelty and Service Workers Union, alleging violations of ERISA and LMRA concerning the diversion of pension contributions. Schlesinger moved to dismiss the entire complaint, and the International moved to dismiss the ERISA claim. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted both motions, finding that neither defendant acted as a fiduciary under ERISA when negotiating the collective bargaining agreement, nor did plaintiffs have standing under LMRA § 301 as non-parties to the agreement. As a result, the complaint against Schlesinger was dismissed entirely, and the ERISA claim against the International was dismissed.

ERISA Fiduciary DutyLMRA ClaimsPension Fund ContributionsCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissLack of StandingEmployer LiabilityUnion Fiduciary DutiesBenefit Plan AdministrationSole Benefit Rule
References
15
Case No. No. 77 Civ. 4712 (MP)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1978

National Ben. Fund, Etc. v. Presby. H., Etc.

The National Benefit Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers and the National Pension Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers (the Funds) sued Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, Inc. (Hospital) to recover allegedly owed contributions based on collective bargaining agreements. The Hospital moved to dismiss, asserting the action was barred by a prior arbitration award between the Union (District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees) and the Hospital, which concerned the same contributions and was dismissed due to the Union's unreasonable delay. The District Court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, held that the arbitration award had res judicata effect. The court determined that the Funds were either in privity with the Union or acted as third-party beneficiaries subject to the same defenses as the promisee Union. Consequently, the court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Arbitration AwardRes Judicata DoctrineEmployee Benefit FundsCollective Bargaining DisputesSummary Judgment MotionHospital Labor RelationsUnion RepresentationERISA ClaimsPreclusionFederal District Court
References
19
Case No. 98-CV-1033
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2015

Chao v. International Brotherhood of Industrial Workers Health & Welfare Fund

The Secretary of Labor initiated this ERISA action against fiduciaries of the International Brotherhood of Industrial Workers Health and Welfare Fund (BIW Fund) due to alleged embezzlement by Clarke Lasky and breaches of fiduciary duties. The District Court had previously found violations and assumed control over the distribution of the BIW Fund's remaining assets. Currently, the court addresses motions concerning the Independent Fiduciary's proposed plan for asset distribution and a dispute over whether the National Organization of Industrial Trade Unions (NOITU Fund) is the legal successor to the BIW Fund. The court adopts Magistrate Judge Lindsay's Reports and Recommendations, concluding that the NOITU Fund is not the BIW Fund's legal successor. Consequently, Employee Health Plan Administrators' objections to this finding are overruled, and the court defers ruling on the balance of the parties' applications regarding asset distribution.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee BenefitsWelfare FundSuccessor LiabilityEmbezzlementSummary JudgmentMagistrate Judge Report and RecommendationObjections OverruledDistrict Court
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Mason Tenders, District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund & Training Program Fund v. Faulkner

Plaintiffs, comprised of Trustees of Mason Tenders District Council Welfare, Pension, Annuity, and Training Program Funds, and the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York, initiated legal action against Thomas Faulkner d/b/a American Demolition and Thomas Faulkner individually. The suit, filed under ERISA and the Taft-Hartley Act, alleged the defendants failed to allow an audit of their records and did not make required contributions to the plaintiff funds as stipulated by a collective bargaining agreement. Following a default judgment, Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox issued a Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs objected to portions of this report, specifically regarding Faulkner's personal liability and the awarded attorneys' fees. Upon de novo review, District Judge Holwell modified the Report, determining that Faulkner was personally liable for the business's debts and awarding the full amount of attorneys' fees requested by the plaintiffs, totaling $6,588.75.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActEmployee BenefitsPension FundsWelfare FundsCollective BargainingAudit DisputesDefault JudgmentPersonal LiabilitySole Proprietorship
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iron Workers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Health Fund v. Dinnigan

The case involves a dispute between the Iron Workers Locals 40, 361, & 417 Health Fund and Robert Dinnigan, Amanda C. Dinnigan Supplemental Needs Irrevocable Trust, and their attorney regarding reimbursement of medical expenses. The Health Fund sought nearly $1.7 million paid for Amanda Dinnigan's severe injuries from a third-party tortfeasor settlement. Defendants argued against reimbursement, citing state anti-subrogation laws and the "made-whole" doctrine. The court ruled that the Health Fund was self-insured, thus preempting state law, and that the 2008 SPD, which rejected the made-whole doctrine, applied to most expenses. Ultimately, the court ordered judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,292,278, having reduced the claim by 25% to account for the Defendants' attorneys' fees and expenses in securing the original settlement.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsHealth Fund ReimbursementSubrogationEquitable ReliefSelf-Insured PlanMade-Whole DoctrinePersonal Injury SettlementSupplemental Needs TrustAttorneys' Fees
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 182 v. New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund

Plaintiff Teamsters Local Union No. 182 (Local 182) filed an action against the New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund and the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (the Funds) under 29 U.S.C. § 185. Local 182 sought a declaration affirming the existence of valid collective bargaining agreements between April 1992 and March 1994, which mandated grievance and arbitration procedures, and an order compelling the Funds to arbitrate layoff-related grievances. The Union contended there was a long-standing oral agreement to adhere to applicable provisions of the National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA). The Funds moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the existence of any agreement with requisite definiteness. The court denied the summary judgment motion, affirming subject matter jurisdiction and finding that Local 182 presented genuine issues of material fact concerning the existence of a collective bargaining agreement.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor DisputeUnion RightsGrievance ProcedureArbitrationSeniority RightsLayoffsNational Master Freight AgreementPension Benefits
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. M & M Contracting & Consulting

The plaintiffs, a group of Mason Tenders District Council Funds and associated entities, along with the Union and its managers, sued M & M Contracting & Consulting and its president, Michael T. Moscato, Jr. The suit, brought under ERISA and the Taft-Hartley Act, sought to compel defendants to fulfill their statutory and contractual obligations regarding monetary contributions, reports, dues checkoffs, and NYLPAC contributions. Following the defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered against them. The defendants subsequently moved to vacate this judgment, citing excusable neglect due to their attorney's negligence, a meritorious defense, and a lack of personal jurisdiction over Moscato. The District Court denied the defendants' motion, concluding that their default was willful and dilatory, their defense lacked merit, and personal jurisdiction over Moscato was properly established according to N.Y.C.P.L.R.

Default JudgmentMotion to VacateExcusable NeglectAttorney MalpracticeMeritorious DefensePersonal JurisdictionERISATaft-Hartley ActEmployee BenefitsDues Checkoff
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Bodin Apparel, Inc.

Bodin Apparel, Inc. (Bodin) appealed a bankruptcy court order that granted priority status to a claim by the ILGWU Southeast Region Health and Welfare Fund (the Fund) for unpaid employee benefit contributions. The bankruptcy court had found that Bodin ceased its principal business operations by October 31, 1980, entitling the Fund's claim for contributions from the preceding 180 days to priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4). Bodin contended that its post-October 1980 reorganization and liquidation activities constituted 'doing business,' which would shift the priority measurement date to its November 23, 1981 Chapter 11 filing, thereby eliminating the Fund's priority claim. The district court, under Judge Robert J. Ward, conducted a de novo review of the legal interpretation of 'cessation of business' within § 507(a)(4) and affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, concluding that Bodin had indeed ceased its principal business by October 31, 1980, thus upholding the priority of the Fund's $32,964.98 claim.

Bankruptcy LawEmployee Benefit ClaimsPriority StatusCessation of BusinessStatutory InterpretationChapter 11 ReorganizationUnpaid ContributionsAppellate ReviewBankruptcy Code Section 507(a)(4)Labor Union Fund
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 5,788 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