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. ADJ1932035 (ANA 0234626) ADJ2673288 (ANA 0234627) ADJ4019770 (ANA 0234628)
Regular
Jun 15, 2009

Elmer Bourland vs. LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding a prior order for a lifetime annuity of $900 per month. Defendant argued the original compromise and release agreement intended only a 15-year guaranteed payment period, not a lifetime annuity. However, the Board found the 1992 Order approving the settlement explicitly stated "lifetime annuity" and was not timely challenged by defendant. As no good cause such as fraud or mutual mistake was shown, the 1992 Order is now final and binding.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDELMER BOURLANDLONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTERTRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENTFindings and Orderlifetime annuityCompromise & Releaseindustrial injuryright kneeinternal system
References
14
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance & Annuity Funds v. Employer-Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance & Annuity Funds

A dispute arose between the Employer-Appointed Trustees and Union-Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance and Annuity Funds concerning delinquent employer contributions. An arbitrator issued an award, which the Employer-Appointed Trustees sought to confirm and the Union-Appointed Trustees cross-moved to vacate. Judge Walker of the District Court reviewed the arbitration award, noting the arbitrator based his findings on prior judicial decisions rather than independently interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. The Court determined that the arbitrator failed to apply the contract as bargained for by the parties, thus exceeding his authority. Consequently, the Court vacated the arbitration award and remanded the dispute for proceedings consistent with its order.

Arbitration AwardVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust FundsDelinquent ContributionsRes JudicataManifest Disregard of LawScope of Judicial ReviewLabor Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roca v. Westbury Transport Inc.

This case involves a dispute between the Teamsters Local 814 Pension, Welfare, and Annuity Trust Funds and Westbury Transport, Inc. concerning Westbury's obligation to contribute for an employee, James Dawson. The core issue centers on interpreting the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) regarding 'seniority' and 'seasonal employees,' which dictates the contribution requirements. Both parties moved for summary judgment, presenting conflicting interpretations of the CBA's provisions. The court denied both motions, ruling that a de novo standard of review applies to employer contribution obligations under a CBA, rather than the arbitrary and capricious standard. The court found that the relevant clauses of the CBA were ambiguous, thereby creating genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment and require a trial.

Collective Bargaining AgreementPension FundWelfare FundAnnuity FundTrust AgreementsSummary Judgment MotionContract InterpretationStandard of ReviewDe Novo ReviewArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
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

Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 137 Insurance Annuity & Apprenticeship Training Funds v. Vic Construction Corp.

The case involves the Board of Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 137 Insurance, Annuity and Apprenticeship Training Funds and the Executive Board of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 137 (plaintiffs) suing Vic Construction Corporation and Charles Nalbone (defendants). Plaintiffs alleged that Vic Construction failed to make payments to the Funds in violation of a collective bargaining agreement and ERISA, and that Charles Nalbone operated Vic Construction as his alter ego. The core dispute revolves around an oral settlement agreement made on January 6, 1993, where Nalbone stipulated to an indebtedness of $26,935.26 and personally guaranteed payment. Defendants later refused to sign a written agreement, citing a subsequent Second Circuit decision in Sasso v. Cervoni which reversed a prior ruling regarding individual liability for corporate ERISA obligations. The court ruled that federal common law should govern the validity of the oral settlement agreement in ERISA disputes, rather than New York's Rule 2104 requiring a writing. Applying factors for determining intent to be bound, the court found that the parties intended to be bound by the oral agreement. The defendants' request to rescind the agreement due to a subsequent change in legal interpretation was denied, as a 'poor prediction of events' or changes in judicial interpretation of statutes do not constitute a mistake warranting rescission. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the agreement was granted.

ERISAOral Settlement AgreementContract EnforcementFederal Common LawNew York Civil Practice Law and RulesAlter EgoCorporate LiabilityMistake of LawJudicial InterpretationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
20
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Green

This proceeding involves an uncontested application for leave to settle and compromise a wrongful death action stemming from a fire on December 4, 1980, which resulted in the death of the decedent, survived by a spouse and three children. The proposed structured settlement totals $5,650,000, comprising a cash payment and annuities purchased through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, designed to provide guaranteed periodic payments of $37,674,000. The court addresses several issues, including the propriety of attorney's fees, the allocation of annuity costs among beneficiaries based on the Kaiser formula, and potential modifications to equalize shares among the children. The court found the proposed allocation unacceptable as it granted the widow significantly more than her Kaiser share and penalized the children, and also identified drawbacks in the guardian ad litem's suggestion due to its impact on the youngest child from inflation and a substantial reduction in their Kaiser entitlement. The decision concludes by proposing modifications to the guardian's plan, including increasing annual support and adjusting shares between the middle and youngest child, and ultimately remands the matter for reconsideration due to the changes affecting the parties and the widow's annuity.

Wrongful Death SettlementStructured SettlementAnnuity AllocationPecuniary LossDependency PeriodBeneficiary SharesKaiser FormulaGuardian Ad LitemAttorney's FeesEstate Distribution
References
4
Case No. ADJ558286
Regular
Dec 13, 2010

DEBORAH McCALLUM (Deceased) WINONA McCALLUM vs. AGRO-TECH LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a deceased worker's dependent seeking commutation of future annuity payments to a lump sum due to alleged financial hardship. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found that even though the judge's ruling on jurisdiction over the annuity company was flawed, the applicant's request was procedurally defective. Specifically, the applicant's interests are intertwined with his sister's, and their payments are managed by a guardian ad litem, preventing the applicant from acting independently.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJurisdictionAnnuity Companycommutationlump sumStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 5804Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR)dependency claim
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 98 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