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

Claim of Barcomb v. Delphi Automotive

Claimant, an assembler, developed angioedema and asthma attributed by medical professionals to an airborne work-related allergen, although the specific allergen remained unidentified. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling that the lack of specific allergen identification precluded a finding of causal relationship to employment. On appeal, the court found that the Board misinterpreted legal precedent, particularly Matter of Adams v Univera Health Care/Excellus, by placing undue emphasis on the claimant's inability to identify the specific allergen. The court clarified that establishing a causal connection to the workplace is paramount. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further consideration, emphasizing a proper application of causation standards.

Occupational diseaseAccidental injuryAngioedemaAsthmaAirborne allergenCausationMedical evidenceIndependent medical examinationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Argento v. Airborne Freight Corp.

Salvatore Argento sued Airborne Freight Corporation and Local 851 for negligence, alleging that his spouse became addicted to drugs during her employment at Airborne. Local 851 moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing it owed no duty to Argento to ensure a safe workplace for his spouse. The court found that Argento's claim, based on a common law negligence theory, was either preempted by federal labor law due to its reliance on a collective bargaining agreement or failed under common law because unions generally do not owe a duty to provide a safe workplace, and even if they did, it wouldn't extend to a non-employee spouse. Consequently, Local 851's motion to dismiss was granted, and the complaint against it was dismissed with prejudice.

NegligenceLabor LawFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of CareMotion to DismissUnion LiabilityLoss of ConsortiumEmployment LawDismissed with Prejudice
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First Tech. Capital, Inc. v. Airborne, Inc.

Plaintiff First Technology Capital, Inc. initiated an action against Airborne, Inc. d/b/a/ Firstflight for breach of contract. After a series of court decisions, including a vacatur by the Second Circuit and a subsequent default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the case was closed. The plaintiff then filed a motion to alter the judgment, seeking to remove the language that closed the case to facilitate post-judgment discovery. The court denied this motion, clarifying that reopening the case is unnecessary for a judgment creditor to pursue post-judgment discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2), as courts retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce judgments.

Post-judgment discoveryFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 69Ancillary jurisdictionJudgment enforcementMotion to alter judgmentCase closureJudgment creditorDistrict Court ProcedureDiscovery scopeWestern District of New York
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Adams v. Univera Health Care/Excellus

Claimant, a patient service representative, stopped working due to severe coughing attributed to environmental irritants. A workers' compensation law judge and the Workers' Compensation Board initially found a compensable, work-related injury. However, the employer appealed this decision, arguing a lack of evidence for an identifiable workplace allergen. The court sided with the employer, concluding that there was no substantial medical evidence to establish a causal link between the claimant's condition and the workplace, given the absence of a specific allergen identification and the claimant's pre-existing allergies. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the claim was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationEnvironmental IrritantsAllergiesWorkplace ConditionsSubstantial EvidenceMedical EvidenceAppealDisability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sciame v. Airborne Express, Inc.

This case addresses the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a) concerning the maximum weekly benefits a claimant can receive for concurrent schedule and nonschedule awards. The court reaffirms its established precedent that these concurrent payments cannot exceed the statutory cap of $400 per week for 2004 injuries, irrespective of whether the nonschedule award stems from a permanent disability. This principle was also extended to include periodic payments for a schedule loss of use award and nonschedule award payments for temporary disability. The court concluded that the 2009 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 and 25 did not indicate legislative intent to overturn this longstanding cap. Consequently, the Board's decision, which held that the claimant's receipt of maximum weekly benefits from a nonschedule award precluded additional benefits from a schedule loss of use award, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit MaximumsConcurrent AwardsSchedule Loss of Use AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory CapJudicial Precedent AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Law Interpretation2009 Amendments AnalysisPermanent Disability Benefits
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tamara v. Airborne Express, Inc.

Claimant, who sustained work-related injuries in January 2004, settled a third-party personal injury action for $155,000 in February 2009 with the employer's consent. Subsequently, when the claimant sought to reopen her workers' compensation claim, the employer asserted a right to offset future benefits from the settlement proceeds under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (4). Although a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially denied the offset, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the employer had reserved its rights. However, the appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that despite earlier communications, the subsequent settlement agreement's lien waiver did not unambiguously preserve the employer's right to a future offset, thus overturning the Board's determination for lack of substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29Offset of Future BenefitsThird-Party SettlementLien WaiverReservation of RightsAppellate ReversalWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionSchedule Loss of UseWork-Related InjurySubstantial Evidence
References
6
Case No. LAO 0834728
Regular
Jul 12, 2007

FELIPE CABALLERO vs. AIRBORNE EXPRESS, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

The Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's due process claim regarding the automatic commutation of attorney's fees. While affirming the $100\%$ permanent disability award and the attorney's fee amount, the Board deferred the issue of commutation. The case is returned to the trial level to determine how the attorney's fees will be paid, either from accrued benefits or through a proper commutation process.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCommutationAttorney's FeesLife PensionPermanent DisabilityDue ProcessAccrued Disability IndemnityFindings Award and OrderIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. OAK 0291011, OAK 0288999, OAK 0315224
Regular
May 01, 2007

Victor White vs. DHL WORLDWIDE/AIRBORNE EXPRESS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, COCACOLA ENTERPRISES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded prior decisions, and returned the cases to the trial level for further proceedings. This action was taken because the Board found the Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding that the concept of permanent disability overlap was repealed by SB 899, and the medical evidence regarding apportionment and the timing of permanent and stationary status was insufficient. The Board specifically noted that apportionment must be based on causation and that employers are only liable for the percentage of disability directly caused by the industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentOverlapSB 899CausationMedical TreatmentSelf-Procured ExpensesAgreed Medical ExaminerSubstantial Medical Evidence
References
12
Case No. ADJ9703207
Regular
May 03, 2016

TRACY GIANG vs. AIRBORNE SYSTEMS aka TRANSDIGM HOLDING COMPANY, THE HARTFORD FIRE AND ACCIDENT INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's challenges to the original award. While affirming the applicant's industrial injury to the lumbar spine and the $24\%$ permanent disability rating, the Board rescinded the temporary disability award. The Board found the temporary disability award was not supported by substantial medical evidence, as it relied solely on an EDD certification form. The issue of EDD's lien was also deferred pending further proceedings on the temporary disability issue.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionEDD LienReopening RecordMcDuffie Development
References
9
Case No. ADJ1707650 (SAL 0075628)
Regular
Jun 20, 2011

KAREN CLARK (Deceased) JEFFREY J. CLARK(Dependent) vs. AIRBORNE EXPRESS/DHL, AMERICAN MANUFACTURER'S INSURANCE COMPANY/SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision that barred their death benefit claim due to the statute of limitations. They argued that compensable consequence injuries should be treated as new injuries, with the date of knowledge of industrial causation being the relevant date. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, adopting the judge's report, and amended the findings. The amended finding clarifies the injured worker's death from a Fentanyl overdose and asserts it was a compensable consequence of a prior industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath CaseLabor Code section 5406Compensable consequence injuriesStatute of limitationDate of knowledgeIndustrial injuryFentanyl overdosePetition for reconsiderationFindings and Order
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 21 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