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

Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund of the Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the Electrical Industry

Plaintiff Claude Jeffries, a retired electrician, sued the Pension Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry under ERISA, seeking to include pension credits from 1969-1975 in his current benefits. He alleged the Plan should have declared a partial termination during a 1975-1979 New York recession, which would have vested his benefits. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of standing and statute of limitations, while plaintiff moved for class certification for similarly affected members. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for benefits, finding it timely, but granted dismissal for the breach of fiduciary duty claim as time-barred. The plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied due to insufficient evidence for numerosity, with leave to refile after discovery.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass CertificationMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFiduciary DutyPartial TerminationBenefit ForfeitureUnemploymentLabor Union
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laflamme v. Carpenters Local 370 Pension Plan

Plaintiff Michael LaFlamme initiated a class action against the Carpenters Local #370 Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) concerning the plan's 'freezing rule' for benefit accrual after a 'break in service.' LaFlamme sought a judicial declaration that this rule contravenes ERISA's minimum accrual standards, along with a reformation of the pension plan and recalculation of benefits for all affected class members. The court, presided over by District Judge Hurd, evaluated the motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b), finding that the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were met. Consequently, the motion for class certification was granted, establishing a class comprised of all plan participants, active or retired, who experienced a service break resulting in frozen benefit accrual rates. The decision also outlined procedures for providing notice to the newly certified class members, while deferring detailed adjudication of defenses like statute of limitations and exhaustion of remedies to later dispositive motions.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass ActionBenefit AccrualFreezing RuleBreaks in ServiceClass CertificationRule 23(a)Rule 23(b)Federal Civil Procedure
References
49
Case No. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Case No. 05-01158
Regular Panel Decision

In Re ACE Elevator Co., Inc.

The Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Benefit Plans sought administrative priority for delinquent contributions from A.C.E. Elevator Co., Inc. (ACE), based on various sections of the Bankruptcy Code. The court denied administrative priority for most claims, including those under 11 U.S.C. §§ 503(b)(1)(A), 507(a)(1), and 1113(f), reasoning that the contributions were for prepetition work and that section 1113(f) does not create super-priority. However, the motion was partially granted under 11 U.S.C. § 1114(e) for Welfare Plan contributions, recognizing them as retiree benefits despite their prepetition nature, but requiring further information on the exact allocation to retirees. Claims for interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees were denied priority, as was ACE's request for costs. This decision underscores the careful interpretation of priority schemes within bankruptcy law.

Bankruptcy LawAdministrative PriorityEmployee BenefitsPension PlansWelfare PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementsDebtor-in-PossessionRetiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection ActPrepetition ClaimsPostpetition Claims
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cutler v. 65 Security Plan

The case concerns the financial distress of The 65 Security Plan, a Taft-Hartley multiemployer trust fund providing welfare benefits, which faces a significant deficit and numerous outstanding claims from health care providers and participants. Litigation costs from hundreds of lawsuits are depleting the Fund's limited assets. To safeguard these assets and establish an equitable distribution, the court granted a preliminary stay on all state and federal proceedings against the Fund and its beneficiaries. A Special Master, the Honorable Milton Mollen, was appointed to aid in asset maximization and settlement plan development. The court explores various legal devices, including bankruptcy, receivership, and class action, ultimately favoring a 'quasi bankruptcy' approach combining elements of these to achieve a swift and cost-effective resolution for all creditors through negotiated settlement.

Employee BenefitsTrust Fund InsolvencyPreliminary InjunctionAll Writs ActERISA LitigationBankruptcy EligibilityQuasi BankruptcyClass Action (Mandatory)Special Master AppointmentHealth Care Claims
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 1989

Kinek v. Gulf & Western, Inc.

The Kinek plaintiffs and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) sued Gulf & Western, Inc. (G&W) and its pension plan for alleged violations of a collectively-bargained pension agreement and ERISA, stemming from a 'spin-off' where G&W transferred assets and liabilities to Horsehead Industries' pension plan. Plaintiffs argued G&W failed to fully fund vested pension benefits upon this transfer, as contractually required by the G&W Plan's sections 3.1 and 10.2. The court confirmed plaintiffs' standing and applied a de novo standard of review. It ruled that the G&W Plan's provisions, when read together, obligated G&W to provide full funding for vested benefits during an asset transfer. Consequently, the court denied G&W's motion for summary judgment and granted the Kinek plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment, holding G&W liable.

ERISALMRAPension PlanEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentContract DisputePension FundingAsset TransferSpin-offVested Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LTV Steel Co. v. Connors (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case is an appeal of two orders issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The first order granted partial summary judgment to the Mining Companies and LTV Steel Corporation, holding they were not legally obligated to pay retiree health benefits. The second order granted the United Mine Workers of America's cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust was liable to pay these benefits. The Plan & Trust appealed both orders to the District Court, arguing violations of the Retiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection Act, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denial of due process, and misinterpretation of its obligations under the Wage Agreement's 'no longer in business' clause. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's orders, finding the Act inapplicable, subject matter jurisdiction proper as a core proceeding, sufficient opportunity to litigate, and the Plan & Trust liable due to contractual interpretation and collateral estoppel from prior litigations.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 ReorganizationRetiree Health BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementUMWAEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionCore ProceedingCollateral Estoppel
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Niedermaier v. Southern Tier Building Trades Benefit Plan

Plaintiff Karl Niedermaier, a natural gas pipeline superintendent, sought health benefits coverage from the Southern Tier Building Trades Plan for his bilateral hearing loss and cochlear implant received in 2011. The Plan, through the Joint Board of Trustees, denied his requests for coverage, citing "artificial implant" and "hearing aid" exclusions. After two internal appeals were denied, Plaintiff commenced an action under ERISA to recover benefits. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court found that while a cochlear implant is not a hearing aid, it reasonably falls under the "artificial implant" exclusion of the Plan. Therefore, the court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiff's motion.

ERISAhealth benefitscochlear implanthearing lossartificial implant exclusionhearing aid exclusionsummary judgmentplan interpretationbenefits denialprocedural irregularities
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 1988

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp.

David H. Miller and William W. Shaffer ("Miller and Shaffer") moved to intervene individually and as representatives of participants in the Jones & Laughlin Retirement Plan in an action filed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) against LTV Corporation and LTV Steel Company ("LTV"). LTV did not object to individual intervention but opposed class action intervention, arguing it would delay the PBGC action. The court granted the motion, allowing Miller and Shaffer to intervene both individually and as class representatives. The decision emphasized that Miller and Shaffer met the minimal burden of showing that PBGC's representation might be inadequate, as their interests, seeking full plan benefits, could diverge from PBGC's role as plan administrator. This opinion allows the class action to proceed under Rule 23(e), preventing dismissal or compromise without court approval.

InterventionERISAPension PlansBankruptcyClass ActionRule 24Rule 23(e)Adequate RepresentationPlan TerminationRestoration
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 1978

Excavators Union Local 731 Welfare Fund v. Zurmuhlen

The Supreme Court, New York County, on March 13, 1978, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on three claims for employee benefits. This appellate decision modifies the original judgment by reducing the welfare fund's recovery to $42,326.54 plus interest and costs, otherwise affirming the lower court's decision. The case concerns an employer's failure to contribute to an employee welfare fund as required by a labor contract, leading to an action under Labor Law § 198-c. The court analyzed the applicability of civil liability to corporate officers under this penal statute, confirming that a private right of action is implied. The defendant, as the sole stockholder and president, was held responsible for the non-payment of benefits.

Employee benefitsWage supplementsSummary judgmentCorporate officer liabilityPenal statutesCivil remedyLabor contractFringe benefitsEmployer contributionsWelfare fund
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 7,303 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