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

Romney v. Lin

This opinion addresses an action to collect unpaid contributions owed by Goodee Fashions, Inc. to four union benefit funds, totaling $70,647.17. After an initial judgment against Goodee Fashions proved uncollectible, the plaintiff, representing the union benefit funds, sued Alan Lin, a principal shareholder, under New York Bus. Corp. Law § 630. This state law holds the ten largest shareholders jointly and severally liable for debts to employees, including benefit funds. Defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing preemption by ERISA and LMRA. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 630 is preempted by ERISA. Consequently, the claim for $70,647.17 was dismissed, except for a $598.27 portion related to the Sportswear Industry Trust Fund, which was deemed not an ERISA fund.

ERISA PreemptionLMRAShareholder LiabilityUnpaid ContributionsEmployee Benefit PlansCollective BargainingState Law PreemptionFederal JurisdictionCorporate DebtDismissal
References
11
Case No. 1:06-CV-1034
Regular Panel Decision

Rahm v. Halpin (In Re Halpin)

This case involves an appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court regarding the dischargeability of debt owed by William C. Halpin, Jr. (Appellee) to benefit funds of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 236 (Plaintiff-Appellants). The Plaintiff-Appellants alleged that Appellee, as president of Halpin Mechanical & Electric, Inc. (HM & E), breached his fiduciary duty by failing to remit employer contributions totaling $44,452.24 from July 2002 through January 2003. They sought to have this debt declared non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and to offset it with Appellee's annuity and pension benefits. The District Court reviewed the Bankruptcy Court's decision de novo. The central issues were whether the unremitted employer contributions constituted 'plan assets' and if Appellee acted in a fiduciary capacity regarding these funds. The Court found that the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) did not define when contributions became plan assets but rather implied they were contractual payment obligations. Consequently, Appellee was deemed not to have fiduciary responsibilities over these specific unpaid employer contributions. Although Appellee admitted breaching fiduciary duty concerning contributions withheld from employee pay (which are considered plan assets), these specific debts were resolved separately. Since the unpaid employer contributions were not considered plan assets, Appellee was found to have no personal liability for them under a fiduciary capacity, rendering the debt dischargeable. Furthermore, the Court determined that an offset against Appellee's benefits was unavailable. Therefore, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order, concluding that the debt arising from the unremitted employer contributions was dischargeable.

Bankruptcy LawFiduciary DutyERISAPlan AssetsEmployer ContributionsDebt DischargeabilitySetoffCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewBenefit Funds
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Natale v. Central Parking Systems of New York, Inc.

The case involves trustees of Health and Pension Funds (Plaintiffs) suing Central Parking System of New York, Inc. and Sonya Mitchell (Defendants) under ERISA for alleged unpaid contributions for certain employees. The Plaintiffs claimed an audit revealed unpaid contributions, arguing that fourteen disputed employees (managers, assistant managers, and supervisors) were covered by Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs). The Defendants moved for partial summary judgment, contending these employees were supervisory, had 'Status Authority,' and were thus excluded from the CBAs. The Court granted the Defendant's motion, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that contributions were owed for the disputed employees, as their evidence (audit report, deposition testimony, and previous contributions) was insufficient to prove these employees lacked Status Authority or were covered by the CBAs.

ERISAEmployee ContributionsCollective Bargaining AgreementsSummary JudgmentSupervisory EmployeesFiduciary DutyPayroll AuditUnpaid ContributionsLabor LawRule 56
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Panepinto

Defendants Antonio Panepinto and Peter Nanfria were charged with conspiring to embezzle assets of employee welfare benefit funds, embezzling such assets, making false statements in ERISA-required documents, mail fraud, and bribing a union official. The core of the charges stemmed from their alleged creation of RO-IG Coat and Suit Corp. to perform work for non-participating manufacturers, thereby evading required contributions to employee benefit funds under a collective bargaining agreement. Defendants moved to dismiss the first ten counts, arguing that unpaid employer contributions were not 'assets' of the funds and that their actions were merely a breach of contract, not embezzlement. They also sought dismissal of the false statement and mail fraud counts and requested a Bill of Particulars, claiming insufficient factual allegations regarding RO-IG's affiliation. The court denied all defendants' omnibus motions, ruling that the underlying wage agreement established unpaid employer contributions as 'assets' of the funds and that the defendants, as fiduciaries, had converted these funds. The court also found the indictment's factual allegations sufficient concerning the relationship between the firms.

ConspiracyEmbezzlementERISAEmployee Welfare Benefit FundsMail FraudUnion Official BriberyCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployer ContributionsPlan AssetsMotion to Dismiss
References
13
Case No. ADJ581749 (VNO 0529719)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

ARLENE HITE vs. TEPCO (STANDARD ABRASIVES, INC.), EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Clarendon National Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's contribution award. Clarendon argued it should not be liable for contribution because it was joined as a defendant over a year after the underlying cumulative trauma claim was settled. The Board denied reconsideration, finding that Clarendon received timely actual notice of Everest's contribution claim within one year of the settlement approval. Therefore, despite the delay in formal joinder, Clarendon cannot show prejudice and is liable for its share of the contribution award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ContributionLabor Code section 5500.5Cumulative traumaCompromise and releaseOrder of JoinderNunc pro tuncActual noticeTimely noticePrejudice
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Findlay Industries, Inc.

The Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Findlay Industries Inc. for alleged unpaid contributions related to vacation and holiday pay, seeking back contributions, liquidated damages, and injunctive relief. Findlay Industries Inc. maintained that its collective bargaining agreements with four local unions only required contributions for 'hours worked,' not for vacation or holiday pay. The court found that Findlay had consistently contributed based on 'hours worked' since 1973, and the Fund had knowingly accepted this interpretation for many years. Despite previous audits and demands, the Fund's claims for additional contributions were rejected, and the court ruled that the collective bargaining agreements required contributions only for 'hours worked.' Consequently, all claims by the plaintiff Fund were dismissed on the merits.

Pension Fund DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementHours WorkedVacation PayHoliday PayERISALMRAContract InterpretationEmployer ContributionsTrust Fund
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2014

Gesualdi v. Fortunata Carting Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of various Local 282 benefit funds, sued Fortunata Carting Inc. for unpaid contributions under ERISA and LMRA. District Judge Kuntz granted default judgment and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Go for damages. Judge Go recommended awarding $382,381.41, covering unpaid contributions from remittance reports and audits, recoupment of benefits paid to ineligible owner Vincent Mascia, and amounts due from a prior settlement agreement. The recommendation also included interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and audit costs. Judge Kuntz adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, ordering the entry of judgment for the specified amount and the closure of the case, as no objections were filed by the deadline.

ERISALMRAMPPAADefault JudgmentUnpaid ContributionsMulti-employer FundsDamages CalculationPrejudgment InterestAttorneys' FeesAudit Costs
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2000

In Re Perk Development Corp.

Perk Development Corporation and Brambury Associates, debtors in a jointly administered Chapter 11 case, objected to a proof of claim filed by Liberty Mutual Group. Liberty Mutual sought priority status for $38,354.00 in unpaid pre-petition workers' compensation insurance premiums, arguing they constituted contributions to an employee benefit plan under Section 507(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code. The debtors contended these premiums were not entitled to priority status. The Court, aligning with precedents from the Eighth and Tenth Circuits, ruled that unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums are not contributions to employee benefit plans and thus do not qualify for priority status under Section 507(a)(4). Consequently, the portion of Liberty Mutual's claim for these premiums was allowed only as a nonpriority unsecured claim.

Chapter 11BankruptcyPriority ClaimEmployee Benefit PlanWorkers' Compensation InsuranceUnsecured ClaimSection 507(a)(4)Creditor ClaimDebtor ObjectionJudicial Precedent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nigro v. Dwyer

This case involves plaintiffs (various pension-type funds, including IBEW Local 363 Pension Fund) suing William A. Dwyer, President of On-Line Electric, Inc., personally for unpaid contributions. On-Line Electric, Inc. was dissolved in 1998 for unpaid franchise taxes, but Dwyer signed a Letter of Assent in 2000, binding On-Line to collective bargaining agreements requiring contributions to the Funds. Dwyer made payments until 2001 but ceased thereafter, despite continuing electrical work. On-Line was reinstated in good standing on March 3, 2005, shortly before the complaint was filed. Plaintiffs argue Dwyer is personally liable because the contracts were entered into while the corporation was dissolved. The court reviews New York Tax Law § 203-a (7) regarding retroactive corporate liability upon reinstatement, noting the 'fraud exception' recognized by the Second Circuit. The court denies the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding that although the facts suggest possible fraud, they do not compel such a conclusion, thus necessitating a trial on the issue of fraud.

Corporate DissolutionPersonal LiabilityFranchise TaxCollective Bargaining AgreementPension ContributionsSummary Judgment MotionFraud ExceptionRetroactive ReinstatementNew York Tax LawAlter Ego Liability
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sciascia v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

The Trustees of the Special and Superior Officers Benevolent Association Defined Contribution Fund (Plaintiffs) sued Rochdale Village, Inc. (Defendant) for allegedly failing to make required contributions to the fund. The Plaintiffs' claims were brought under Section 301 of the LMRA and Sections 515 and 502(a)(3) of ERISA. The Defendant argued that its obligation was contingent on an unsatisfied condition precedent and that the contributions would be illegal under LMRA Section 302. The Court found the Memorandum of Agreement created an unambiguous obligation for the Defendant to contribute, and the SSOBA Fund did not violate LMRA Section 302. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the Defendant's motion.

ERISALMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDefined Contribution PlanPension FundSummary JudgmentCondition PrecedentMultiemployer PlanTrust FundEmployer Contributions
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 2,130 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