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

Nardolillo v. Sovinsky

Plaintiffs, members of the Tile, Marble and Terrazzo Helpers Subordinate Union No. 8, sought to recover funds contributed by their employer to a trust fund. They argued that the discontinuation of employer contributions rendered them ineligible for benefits, making the trust's purpose impossible and leading to unjust enrichment by the fund. Defendants countered that such payments would violate the trust agreement and IRS provisions, maintaining that plaintiffs remained eligible. The court determined that the fund was a common trust, not individual escrowed accounts, and upheld the trustees' interpretation that ensured plaintiffs' continued eligibility, preventing a forfeiture of rights. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion was denied, and the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.

Union Trust FundEmployee BenefitsEmployer ContributionsTrust AgreementBenefit EligibilityFund AdministrationBreach of TrustFiduciary DutyDismissal MotionLabor-Management Relations Act
References
6
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. 2018 NY Slip Op 05037 [163 AD3d 558]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2018

Matter of Empire State Transp. Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Comm.

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust for judicial approval of a settlement, nunc pro tunc, against the Special Funds Conservation Committee. The underlying issue stemmed from the Trust's failure to obtain consent from the Special Funds for a claimant's personal injury settlement, which led the Workers' Compensation Board to find a waiver of reimbursement rights. After an initial denial by the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division reversed and remitted, affirming the court's discretion in compelling such consent. Upon remittitur, the Supreme Court granted the petition, directing the Special Funds to provide nunc pro tunc consent. The Appellate Division affirmed this subsequent order, concluding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay was adequately explained, and no prejudice was demonstrated against the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationNunc Pro TuncSettlement ApprovalPersonal Injury ActionSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeAppellate DiscretionReimbursement WaiverJudicial ReviewAppellate PracticeNassau County
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 1995

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. State Insurance Fund

Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National Union) initiated a declaratory judgment action against The State Insurance Fund (SIF) to recover defense and settlement costs. These costs were expended on behalf of Regional Scaffolding and Hoisting Co., Inc., a mutually insured party in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court initially denied National Union's motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of SIF. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the antisubrogation rule did not apply in this context. Consequently, it determined that National Union and SIF were co-insurers for Regional Scaffolding's common-law liability. The court granted National Union's motion for summary judgment in part, declaring SIF's duty to reimburse National Union for one-half of the reasonable settlement and defense costs, and remanded for a trial to ascertain these amounts.

Antisubrogation RuleDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeCo-Insurer LiabilityDefense Costs ReimbursementSettlement CostsEmployer's LiabilityComprehensive General LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estate of Ritzer Ex Rel. Ritzer v. National Organization of Industrial Trade Unions Insurance Trust Fund Hospital

The Fund (National Organization of Industrial Trade Unions Insurance Trust Fund) moved to reargue a prior decision that granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff Karl Ritzer, now deceased. The court had previously found that the Fund arbitrarily and capriciously denied Ritzer’s medical benefits claim based on an unannounced “selective participation” rule, violating ERISA disclosure requirements. The Fund presented six grounds for reconsideration, including arguments regarding agency law, employer agreements, discovery, ERISA preemption, and Ritzer's alleged knowledge of the rule. The court rejected all the Fund's arguments, emphasizing that the Fund failed to adequately disclose the rule to employers or participants, and that Ritzer showed a high probability of prejudice. The motion to reargue was denied.

ERISAEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanSummary Plan DescriptionDisclosure RequirementsArbitrary and Capricious StandardDenial of BenefitsRetroactive Application of RuleSelective Participation RuleDetrimental RelianceBurden of Proof
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2015

Gesualdi v. Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc.

Plaintiffs, the Trustees and Fiduciaries of various Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training, and Vacation and Sick Leave Trust Funds, initiated an action against Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc. to recover unpaid liabilities and contributions. This action arose from two audits that identified delinquent contributions and the defendant's complete withdrawal from the Funds. Following Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc.'s default, the Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. United States Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke recommended granting the motion and awarding specific damages. District Judge Spatt subsequently adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, granting the default judgment and ordering damages totaling $156,898.74, along with daily interest, liquidated damages, audit fees, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Default JudgmentERISAUnpaid ContributionsWithdrawal LiabilityEmployee BenefitsMulti-employer PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementPrejudgment InterestLiquidated Damages
References
48
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. 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
Jan 15, 1991

Chase Lincoln First Bank v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

This case involves an appeal concerning the priority of claims to funds owed by New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) to Anderson Tree Company, Inc. Chase Lincoln First Bank, N.A. held a perfected security interest in Anderson Tree's accounts. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 1249 Pension Fund, et al. (the Brotherhood) also claimed entitlement to these funds due to Anderson Tree's obligation for fringe benefit contributions under a collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Chase Lincoln, determining its security interest took priority because Anderson Tree's work for NYSEG did not constitute an "improvement of real property" under Lien Law § 70, thus no statutory trust was established for the Brotherhood. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the vegetation maintenance performed by Anderson Tree was not a permanent improvement and therefore did not trigger the Lien Law's trust provisions.

Lien LawSecurity InterestSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal Property ImprovementStatutory TrustFringe BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementPriority of ClaimsVegetation Management
References
6
Case No. 11 CV 1471
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Industry International Pension Fund

The case involves multiple plaintiffs, participants in the Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund Pension Plan, who challenged an amendment to the plan. This amendment eliminated the ability for participants no longer in covered employment to "age into" certain early retirement benefits (Plan C and Plan G). Plaintiffs alleged this violated Section 204(g) of ERISA, the anti-cutback rule, which protects accrued benefits. The Court, applying the standard for judgment on the pleadings, found that the Plan C and Plan G benefits are early retirement or retirement-type subsidies and thus accrued benefits under ERISA. Relying on statutory text and precedent like *Ahng v. Allsteel, Inc.*, the Court ruled that the amendment impermissibly cut back accrued benefits for those employees who had met the years of service requirement and could continue to age into their pension benefits even after separation from employment. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motions for judgment on the pleadings and denied the defendants' motions.

ERISAPension PlanRetirement BenefitsAnti-cutback RuleEmployee BenefitsJudgment on the PleadingsDefined Benefit PlanEarly RetirementAccrued BenefitsPlan Amendment
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 6,262 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