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
Mar 12, 2001

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The case involved a dispute between the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund and Mason Tenders District Council (plaintiffs) and Thomsen Construction Company, Inc., along with its owner, Stephen Thomsen (defendants). While Thomsen Construction conceded liability for failing to make contributions to the Funds, the central issue was whether Stephen Thomsen could be held personally liable. The court applied New York law concerning an agent's personal liability, which requires clear and explicit evidence of intent to assume personal liability, and considered factors such as contract negotiation and the signatory's role. The court found that the personal liability clause was not negotiated, and Thomsen signed in his official capacity as president, intending to avoid personal liability through incorporation. Consequently, the court ruled that Stephen Thomsen was not personally liable, entering judgment in his favor, although judgment was entered against Thomsen Construction, Inc.

Labor LawEmployee BenefitsERISALMRACorporate LiabilityPiercing the Corporate VeilContract LawAgency LawNew York LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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. 03-01-00631-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2002

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Everest National Insurance Company (Everest) sought reimbursement from the Subsequent Injury Fund for overpaid workers' compensation benefits after district court judgments reversed prior agency decisions. The Fund denied a portion of the requested amount, leading Everest to file a declaratory judgment suit in district court. The district court dismissed the suit, citing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to Everest's alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Texas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that Everest was not required to exhaust administrative remedies because the Fund had previously stated no such remedies existed. The appellate court found Everest was authorized to bring a direct suit for declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act to enforce the Fund's statutory obligation, remanding the case for a decision on the merits.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ReimbursementSubsequent Injury FundAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesSubject-Matter JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationTexas Court of AppealsJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. 05 Civ. 0200 (CM)
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2008

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The plaintiffs, including John Virga and various Mason Tenders District Council Funds, sued defendants Big Apple Construction & Restoration Inc. and Kang Yeon Lee for unpaid fringe benefits, dues checkoffs, and Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The defendants failed to respond to discovery and a notice to admit, leading to a default judgment. The court initially granted summary judgment, awarding damages but denying imputed audit costs. Upon reconsideration, the court reversed its decision regarding audit costs, finding that a 'catch-all' provision in the CBA allowed for their recovery. The motion for reconsideration was granted, and imputed audit costs were awarded in addition to the previously granted damages.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementFringe BenefitsDues CheckoffsPAC ContributionsSummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentPersonal LiabilityAudit Costs
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case addresses an action brought by employees and retired employees of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (Teamsters Fund) seeking to enjoin the merger of the Teamsters Fund with the Brewery Workers Pension Fund. Plaintiffs alleged multiple violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), including insufficient employee notification of the proposed merger, potential reduction in benefits, and failure to meet minimum funding standards. Chief Judge Curtin of the federal court determined that ERISA provisions cited by plaintiffs were either inapplicable to multiemployer plans at the time or had established mechanisms to address the concerns. The court also found the claim regarding the merger not being in the best interests of Teamsters Fund participants to be barred by res judicata due to prior state court decisions. Consequently, the court denied the request for preliminary injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Pension FundsFund MergerPreliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentRes JudicataMulti-employer PlansFiduciary DutyMinimum Funding StandardsTax Qualification
References
12
Case No. 10-93-224-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1994

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The Subsequent Injury Fund appeals a judgment awarding Larry Milligan lifetime benefits for injuries sustained at work. Milligan suffered two ankle injuries in 1987 and a third in 1989, leading to the total loss of use of both feet. He sued the Fund for lifetime benefits after settling with the workers' compensation carrier. The jury found permanent, total loss of use of both feet. The Fund challenged its statutory liability for lifetime benefits and the court's refusal to submit a jury question on total and permanent incapacity. The appellate court affirmed, finding the first issue unpreserved and the second resolved by a statutory conclusive presumption of total and permanent incapacity for the loss of both feet.

Workers' Compensation LawSubsequent Injury FundLifetime BenefitsTotal Permanent IncapacityAnkle InjuriesStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJury InstructionsConclusive PresumptionOccupational Injuries
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

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. 909 F.Supp. 882
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 1995

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The United States and the Secretary of Labor sought partial summary judgment against James Lupo and Joseph Fater, former trustees of the Mason Tenders District Council’s Pension and Welfare Funds, alleging ERISA violations. The defendants were accused of breaching their fiduciary duties through imprudent real estate investments in New York and Florida, specifically by purchasing properties at inflated prices without proper investigation or required expert advice. The Court granted the Government's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Lupo and Fater failed to act as prudent fiduciaries. Additionally, the Court denied Fater's cross-motion for summary judgment and subsequently denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration, which included a waived statute of limitations defense. This decision affirmed the trustees' liability for their failure to adequately manage the trust funds.

ERISA violationsFiduciary duty breachPension fund mismanagementWelfare fund investmentsSummary judgmentReal estate investmentsTrustee liabilityPrudent person standardStatute of limitations defenseReconsideration denied
References
43
Case No. 15-25-00134-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves an intergovernmental contract dispute between the Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund (Appellant) and Southwest Texas Junior College (Appellee). The College is seeking replacement cost value benefits under a self-insurance contract for property damage allegedly sustained during an April 2021 hailstorm. The College claims a waiver of the Fund’s governmental immunity under TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 271.152, asserting equitable theories of waiver and unconscionability, and intentional torts of fraud and bad faith to expand coverage beyond the express terms of the agreement. The Fund argued that its governmental immunity had not been waived for these claims and damages, emphasizing that statutory waivers are to be narrowly construed. The trial court partially granted the Fund's jurisdictional plea, dismissing claims for exemplary, consequential, or treble damages, but denied the plea regarding the College's equitable and intentional tort theories, viewing them as defensive in nature. The Fund appeals this partial denial, arguing that the Act's narrow immunity waiver does not extend to these theories which attempt to create coverage where none explicitly exists in the written contract.

Governmental ImmunityContract DisputeSelf-Insurance PoolRisk ManagementEquitable DoctrinesIntentional TortsWaiverUnconscionabilityTexas LawAppellate Review
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 5,145 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