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

Community Service Society v. Welfare Inspector General

The case concerns an application by the Community Service Society (CSS) and Gladys Baez to quash a subpoena issued by the Welfare Inspector General of the State of New York. The subpoena sought privileged communications between Baez and a certified social worker at CSS concerning her marital status and employment, information relevant to an investigation of alleged welfare fraud. Petitioners argued the communications were protected under CPLR 4508. The Inspector General contended Baez waived the privilege by signing a public assistance form and that the communication revealed contemplation of a crime. The court ruled that the signed consent form did not constitute a clear waiver of privilege. It also determined that information about marital status or employment does not inherently reveal the contemplation of a crime for the purpose of the CPLR 4508 exception. Consequently, the court granted the motion to quash the subpoena, affirming the privileged nature of the communications, but denied Baez's requests for an injunction and class action certification.

Social worker-client privilegeCPLR 4508Subpoena quashWelfare fraud investigationWaiver of privilegeConfidential communicationsClass action denialExecutive LawSocial Services LawPenal Code
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2000

Farrell v. Child Welfare Administration

Plaintiff Janet Farrell, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit against the New York City Child Welfare Administration (CWA), alleging wrongful termination based on national origin in violation of Title VII and other civil rights statutes. Farrell claimed she was fired from her caseworker position in 1995 after failing a training program and receiving a low exam score. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found no evidence of national origin discrimination, concluding she was terminated due to her failure to complete requisite training. CWA moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court granted, dismissing the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The Court allowed Farrell to file an amended complaint by January 20, 2000, to provide more specific factual allegations to support her claims.

Employment discriminationTitle VIINational origin discriminationPro se litigantRule 12(c) motionJudgment on the pleadingsFailure to state a claimMunicipal liabilityCivil Rights ActNew York Executive Law
References
33
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06182
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Camille v. Federation of Prot. Welfare Agencies, Inc.

The plaintiff, Marvens Camille, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, Inc.'s motions to extend time to answer and to dismiss the complaint, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for a default judgment. Camille had sued under the Child Victims Act, alleging abuse in 2002 by a staff member of Learner's Haven, which he claimed was supervised by the Federation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the Federation provided a reasonable excuse for its delay and demonstrated a meritorious defense, conclusively establishing that the plaintiff had no cause of action against it.

Personal InjuryChild Victims ActDefault JudgmentMotion to DismissReasonable ExcuseMeritorious DefenseAppellate ReviewCPLRVicarious LiabilityOrganizational Responsibility
References
15
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1979

Lagzdins v. United Welfare Fund-Security Division Marriott Corp.

Plaintiffs John Lagzdins and Peter Akmens, carpenters employed by Paris R. Minuto Corp., sustained injuries when roof trusses collapsed during the construction of a "Roy Rogers Restaurant." The defendants, comprising the property owner (United Welfare Fund-Security Division Mariott Corporation) and the general contractor (Dominick Fieni & Sons), appealed judgments that found them liable for damages and dismissed their third-party complaint against Minuto Corp. The initial jury trial considered theories of common-law negligence (Labor Law § 200), breach of Labor Law § 240, and breach of Labor Law § 241(6). The appellate court reversed the amended judgment, vacated the interlocutory judgment, and ordered a new trial on liability for all parties. This decision was based on erroneous jury instructions concerning Labor Law § 200, an improper res ipsa loquitur instruction, and the incorrect dismissal of the third-party complaint. The court also clarified that contributory negligence does not bar recovery under Labor Law § 240 and affirmed that truss bracing falls within the statute's scope. Damages were held in abeyance pending the outcome of the new trial.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentRoof CollapseLabor Law ViolationsNegligenceThird-Party ActionJury InstructionsNew Trial GrantedAppellate ReviewSafe Place to Work
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2001

Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Thomasen Construction Co.

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
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
Jun 18, 2003

Local 8A-28A Welfare and 401 (K) Retirement Funds v. Golden Eagles Architectural Metal Cleaning and Refinishing

The plaintiffs, Local 8A-28A Welfare and 401(k) Retirement Funds, sued defendant Golden Eagles Architectural Metal Cleaning and Refinishing, alleging violations of ERISA Section 515 and a collective bargaining agreement for failing to submit to an audit. Golden Eagles moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and the requirement for arbitration. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, denied the motion, finding that personal jurisdiction existed over Golden Eagles due to ERISA's nationwide service of process provision, and venue was proper in the Southern District of New York as the Funds are administered there. Furthermore, the court determined that the Local 8A-28A Funds, as independent non-signatory entities, were not bound by the arbitration clause present in the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer. Consequently, Golden Eagles' motion to dismiss was denied.

ERISAPersonal JurisdictionVenueArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee BenefitsTrust FundsMotion to DismissNationwide Service of ProcessMinimum Contacts
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. Allied Design & Construction, LLC

Petitioners, Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds, initiated an action to confirm an arbitration award against Allied Design & Construction, LLC. Allied, bound by a collective bargaining agreement, failed to undergo a payroll audit, leading the Funds to estimate a substantial deficiency in contributions. An arbitrator subsequently awarded the Funds $239,901.47, covering the estimated deficiency, interest, liquidated damages, and various fees. The Funds then sought to have this award confirmed by the District Court and requested additional attorneys' fees and costs incurred during the confirmation process. The District Court granted the petitioners' motions, confirming the arbitration award and ordering Allied to pay an additional $737.50 in attorneys' fees and costs.

Arbitration ConfirmationCollective BargainingDelinquent ContributionsAttorney Fees AwardCourt CostsLabor Management Relations ActFederal Arbitration ActSummary Judgment StandardLodestar CalculationUnion Welfare Funds
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 233 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