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

Sheet Metal Division of Capitol District Sheet Metal, Roofing & Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. Local Union 38 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The plaintiffs, a coalition of sheet metal contractor associations, filed a lawsuit against Local Union 38 and a related employer association, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and labor laws. The core of the dispute was a collective bargaining agreement provision mandating that all sheet metal fabrication be performed within Local 38's geographical jurisdiction, which plaintiffs argued constituted an illegal trade barrier. Defendants countered that the provision was a lawful work preservation clause, protected under labor law exemptions. The court ultimately ruled that the challenged clause was neither a valid work preservation measure nor exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a declaratory judgment, declaring the provision void and unenforceable due to its violation of both the National Labor Relations Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

AntitrustLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Preservation ClauseSherman ActNLRADeclaratory JudgmentTrade BarrierGeographic JurisdictionSecondary Boycott
References
31
Case No. 97 Civ. 6399
Regular Panel Decision

Sheet Metal Contract. Ass'n of Northern New Jersey v. Sheet Metal Workers'intern. Ass'n

The Sheet Metal Contractors Association (SMCA) sought to enjoin the reaffiliation of Local 22 and the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association (SMWIA), alleging racial discrimination and fraudulent inducement, citing violations of federal and New Jersey law. This action is linked to prior court orders in the EEOC litigation (E.E.O.C. v. Local 638) that found unions, including Local 25 (a non-party to this case but involved in EEOC), engaged in discrimination and mandated remedial actions. SMCA contends the proposed reaffiliation would economically disadvantage Local 25 due to differing minority compositions and wage structures, thereby undermining compliance with existing anti-discrimination orders. Despite a special master's prior order barring reaffiliation, the defendants proceeded. The court ordered consolidation of this case with the EEOC litigation, finding common questions of law and fact, and declared the reaffiliation agreement invalid until a ruling on SMCA's preliminary injunctive relief motion.

Racial DiscriminationUnion ReaffiliationInjunctive ReliefConsolidation of ActionsCollective Bargaining AgreementSpecial Master FindingsAll Writs ActFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureCourt Orders ComplianceEconomic Disadvantage
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pasqualini v. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund

This case involves principals of Zodiac Industries, Inc. (Carl, Ann, Frank Pasqualini, and Sarah Lido) who sued the Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, the International, and Local 38 over pension service credits. The plaintiffs sought fifteen years of past service credit, which they claimed was promised to them to induce Zodiac to sign a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Fund denied these credits, citing plan rules. The Court, however, found that 'extraordinary circumstances' warranted applying the principle of estoppel against the Fund. The court ruled in favor of the four owner-members, declaring them entitled to fifteen years of past service credit and ordering the Fund to reconsider their pension applications. Claims brought by other employees and against the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and Local 38 were dismissed.

ERISAPension BenefitsPast Service CreditEstoppelCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion OrganizingContract EnforcementEmployee Benefit PlanFiduciary DutyDistrict Court
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05677
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2022

Board of Trustees v. Allure Metal Works, Inc.

The plaintiff, Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, sought to enforce a money judgment against the defendant, Allure Metal Works, Inc. The plaintiff had previously obtained a consent judgment against a nonparty, All Around Spiral, Inc., for pension fund withdrawal liability under ERISA. The current action alleges that Allure is an alter ego or successor to All Around Spiral. The Supreme Court denied Allure's motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged alter ego and successor liability, citing common officers, shared business premises, equipment, employees, and similar operations, as well as potential de facto merger or fraudulent intent to avoid obligations.

Multiemployer Pension FundERISAAlter Ego LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityMoney Judgment EnforcementCorporate Veil PiercingMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewDe Facto MergerWithdrawal Liability
References
22
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06975
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2021

WDF Inc. v. Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted plaintiff WDF Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc. WDF Inc. successfully demonstrated that Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc. breached their subcontract by failing to provide sufficient workers for the project. The court found Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc.'s arguments unavailing. Fidelity and Deposit Company Maryland was involved as a third-party defendant in the proceedings.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentSubcontract DisputeAppellate ReviewFailure to PerformJudicial AffirmationContract LawThird-Party ActionConstruction LawNew York Law
References
4
Case No. 13-01-704-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Gilda Richard v. Reynolds Metal Company

This case involves a wrongful death and survival action brought by Gilda Richard and her daughter, Kayla Richard, against Reynolds Metals Company. The claims, including strict liability, premises liability, and intentional torts, were initially denied by a summary judgment in June 2001. The appellants challenged the summary judgment on several procedural and substantive grounds, including inadequate discovery responses, improper use of a no-evidence motion, and insufficient notice. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment, finding that Reynolds Metals Company failed to conclusively establish its affirmative defenses or negate the appellants' claims under both traditional and no-evidence summary judgment standards, especially given the unaddressed claims and procedural non-compliance.

wrongful deathsurvival actionsummary judgment reversalprocedural errordiscovery disputesno-evidence motion for summary judgmentaffirmative defensesstatute of limitationsworkers' compensationasbestosis diagnosis
References
20
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06847 [165 AD3d 1377]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2018

Matter of Duncan v. Crucible Metals

Linda Duncan, widow of William Duncan, applied for workers' compensation death benefits after her husband's death from lung cancer, allegedly due to occupational asbestos exposure while employed by Crucible Metals. New Hampshire Insurance Company, a carrier, failed to appear at hearings and was deemed liable, incurring a penalty. New Hampshire Insurance challenged its liability and the penalty, claiming it covered Crucible Industries, Inc., not Crucible Metals, and its non-appearance was inadvertent. The Workers' Compensation Board denied their application for review as untimely. New Hampshire Insurance's subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was also denied, leading to this appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial, limiting its inquiry to whether the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, finding no such issues.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsOccupational ExposureAsbestosLung CancerTimeliness of AppealReconsiderationBoard ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and Capricious
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metal Industries, Inc. of California v. Farley

Annie M. Farley filed an action under the Texas Anti-Retaliation Statute against Metal Industries, Inc. after her termination following a work-related carpal tunnel injury and subsequent workers' compensation claim. A jury found in Ms. Farley's favor, awarding $108,500 in compensatory damages, which the trial court upheld with a judgment of $121,194.71. Metal Industries appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding the causal link between Ms. Farley's compensation claim and her discharge, as well as the damages awarded for lost earnings and mental anguish. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that sufficient evidence supported both the finding of a statutory violation and the awarded damages, even considering the plant's closure and the nature of mental anguish claims.

Anti-Retaliation StatuteWorkers' Compensation ClaimWrongful TerminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeLost Wages DamagesMental Anguish DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceCausal LinkCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ochoa v. Texas Metal Trades Council

Plaintiff Frankie L. Ochoa sued Union Carbide Corporation, Texas City Metal Trades Council, Ronald P. Weaver, and Weldon Hall, alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, breach of duty of fair representation, and various state law claims. Ochoa, a garage mechanic at Union Carbide, reported harassment based on his national origin and union non-membership. He claimed being passed over for opportunities and facing a hostile work environment. Union Carbide investigated but Ochoa felt the situation was not remedied. The Court denied Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment on Title VII claims, finding a genuine issue of fact regarding discrimination. However, state law claims against Union Carbide were dismissed without prejudice due to declining supplemental jurisdiction. All claims against Texas City Metal Trades Council were dismissed with prejudice, as Ochoa sued the wrong party. State law claims against Weaver and Hall were also dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationNational OriginTitle VIILabor Management Relations ActBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentState Law ClaimsSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. 01-05-01190-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2010

Brown & Brown of Texas, Inc. v. Omni Metals, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding negligent misrepresentation and deceptive trade practices in an insurance dispute. Omni Metals, Inc. (Appellee) sued Brown & Brown of Texas, Inc. and Transcontinental Insurance Company (Appellants) after a fire destroyed Omni's steel, which was believed to be covered by Port Metal's bailee insurance. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that the insurance agent made negligent misrepresentations and engaged in deceptive acts by failing to disclose a storage fee exclusion in an "all risk" policy, on which Omni justifiably relied. The court affirmed the judgment regarding liability and additional damages, but modified it by deducting a $740,000 award for attorney's fees incurred in prior litigation, as such fees were not recoverable under the circumstances.

Insurance DisputeNegligent MisrepresentationDeceptive Trade PracticesAgent LiabilityPrincipal LiabilityInsurance Policy ExclusionsBailee InsuranceAll Risk CoverageJustifiable RelianceActual Damages
References
62
Showing 1-10 of 386 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