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

Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Consolidated Welfare Fund

Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (Empire) sued the Consolidated Welfare Fund and other defendants for breach of contract, fraud, and RICO violations. The defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the state law claims were preempted by ERISA. The court analyzed whether the Fund qualified as an 'employee welfare benefit plan' (EWBP) under ERISA. Finding that the Fund, with its 'associate members' from diverse backgrounds and commercial solicitation, did not meet the criteria of an EWBP, the court concluded that ERISA preemption did not apply. Therefore, the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings was denied, allowing Empire's state law claims to proceed.

ERISA PreemptionEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanHealth Insurance FraudLabor Union MembershipAssociate MembersRule 12(c) MotionFederal Civil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationCommercial Insurance SchemesDistrict Court Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald v. City of New York

The plaintiff sustained personal injuries while working on a dry dock at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, asserting the case did not fall under admiralty jurisdiction. On appeal, the higher court reversed this finding, concluding that a maritime nexus and situs existed, thus invoking substantive maritime law. This preemption by federal maritime law rendered the strict liability provisions of New York Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 inapplicable. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss claims based on these labor laws, while affirming the denial of dismissal for claims under common law negligence and Labor Law § 200.

Admiralty JurisdictionMaritime LawLabor LawPreemptionPersonal InjuryDry DockSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtNew YorkNegligence
References
18
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alcantara v. Allied Properties, LLC

Plaintiff-workers filed a lawsuit in New York state court alleging violations of the New York Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (NYDWPA) by new building owners. The plaintiffs sought restoration of their employment and back wages and benefits. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the state law claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The court examined Garmon preemption, Machinists preemption, and Section 301 preemption. It concluded that none of these federal preemption doctrines provided a basis for removal to federal court. The court noted that the state court should be given the opportunity to construe the municipal law's provisions before federal intervention. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

Preemption DoctrineNLRA PreemptionLMRA PreemptionNYDWPAWorkers' Protection ActMotion to RemandFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsCollective BargainingLabor Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

Duane Reade, Inc. v. LOCAL 338, RETAIL, WHOLESALE, DEPT. STORE UNION, UCFW, AFL-CIO

Plaintiff Duane Reade, a large drug store chain, sought a preliminary injunction against Defendant Local 338, a union, to prevent trespassing and solicitation of its employees regarding a union affiliation election. The action, initially filed in New York state court for common law trespass, was removed to federal court by Local 338, which argued for preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Presiding Judge Kaplan considered whether the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of 'complete preemption.' The court concluded that Duane Reade's state law claim fell under 'simple preemption' rather than 'complete preemption,' meaning federal question jurisdiction was not established. Consequently, the district court ruled that the case was improperly removed and ordered it remanded to the New York Supreme Court, County of New York.

Preliminary InjunctionTrespassUnion Affiliation ElectionLabor Management Relations ActLMRA PreemptionComplete PreemptionSimple PreemptionFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionRemand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. Cuomo

Plaintiffs, an association of home care providers and five licensed home care services agencies, challenged the New York Public Health Law § 3614-c (Wage Parity Law), alleging preemption by NLRA and ERISA, and violations of Equal Protection and Due Process. The Court dismissed claims against Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and all claims related to NLRA preemption, Equal Protection, and Due Process. However, the Court denied dismissal of the ERISA preemption claim against Commissioner Nirav R. Shah, finding subdivision 4 of the Wage Parity Law invalid as preempted by ERISA. Consequently, subdivision 4 was severed, and Commissioner Shah was permanently enjoined from enforcing it, while the remainder of the Wage Parity Law was upheld.

Wage Parity LawERISA PreemptionNLRA PreemptionEqual ProtectionDue ProcessStandingSeverabilityHome Care ServicesMedicaidCollective Bargaining
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2001

MacRo v. Independent Health Ass'n, Inc.

Plaintiffs Cheryl Macro and Kim Zastrow, insured under a group health contract with Independent Health through the Tonawanda City School District, initiated a class action in state court to challenge Independent Health's modification of infertility treatment coverage. Defendant Independent Health removed the case to federal court, asserting ERISA preemption. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that their claims fell under New York Insurance Law, which is exempt from ERISA preemption by the saving clause, and that their health plan qualified as a 'governmental plan' also exempt from ERISA. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion, concluding that the claims were indeed saved from ERISA preemption and that the plan was exempt, thus rendering federal subject matter jurisdiction absent. The court accordingly remanded the case back to New York State Supreme Court.

Infertility CoverageHealth Insurance DisputesERISA PreemptionSaving ClauseGovernmental PlansRemoval to Federal CourtSubject Matter JurisdictionNew York Insurance LawClass Action LitigationEmployee Benefits Plan
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isufi v. Prometal Construction, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a class of workers, sued Pro-Metal Construction, Inc. and STV Construction, Inc. in state court for unpaid prevailing wages, benefits, and overtime related to a federally-funded project, asserting state common and statutory law claims. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing federal question jurisdiction due to the applicability of the federal Davis-Bacon Act and its preemption of state law claims. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court. The court examined the doctrines of federal question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint rule, and the artful pleading doctrine, clarifying that preemption generally serves as a defense and not a basis for removal unless it constitutes 'complete preemption,' which the Davis-Bacon Act does not provide. The court determined that the plaintiffs' complaint did not raise a substantial federal issue and was not artfully pleaded to avoid federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state court was granted.

Wage DisputePrevailing WagesOvertimeFederal JurisdictionRemoval and RemandDavis-Bacon ActFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsContract LawArtful Pleading
References
19
Case No. 530353
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2021

Matter of Quigley v. Village of E. Aurora

Daniel Quigley, a police officer with established workers' compensation claims for work-related injuries since 1998 and 2004, developed chronic regional pain syndrome. After years of opiate treatment, his pain management specialist, Cheryl Hart, certified him for medical marihuana in May 2018. The employer and carrier denied the variance request, citing federal preemption by the Controlled Substances Act and statutory exemption under Public Health Law. The Workers' Compensation Board approved the variance, which was upheld by the Appellate Division, Third Department. The court found no conflict preemption and affirmed that workers' compensation carriers are obligated to reimburse for medical marihuana expenses.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsChronic Pain TreatmentMedical MarihuanaVariance ApprovalFederal Preemption DoctrineControlled Substances ActNew York Compassionate Care ActEmployer LiabilityCarrier ReimbursementOpioid Reduction
References
21
Case No. 04-0137
Regular Panel Decision

Drake v. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings

The court issues a decision regarding its jurisdiction over state law claims, prompted by questions from the Second Circuit. It first confirms that complete diversity jurisdiction exists between the parties and deems the complaint amended to reflect this. Second, it elaborates on its decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Drake's state law claims, addressing factors like federal preemption, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, all of which weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction. Finally, the court recertifies the preemption question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), noting a consensus among parties and the potential to avoid protracted and costly litigation if the claims are ultimately found preempted.

Federal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionPreemption DoctrineInterlocutory AppealJudicial EconomyState Law ClaimsSecond Circuit ReviewDistrict Court PowersCase Management
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 136 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