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
Apr 01, 1981

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Turner

Plaintiff Joe Lesly Turner sought total and permanent disability benefits due to an occupational disease. He developed 'contact dermatitis' on his feet and hands after cement exposure on January 10, 1980, exacerbated by an allergy to chromate salts. A jury trial in April 1981 found him totally and temporarily incapacitated for seventy-one weeks. Judgment was rendered for Turner, awarding $8,449.00 in compensation benefits and $662.00 for medical expenses. Defendant Texas Employers Insurance Association appealed the decision, but the judgment was affirmed.

Worker's CompensationOccupational DiseaseContact DermatitisChromate AllergyTotal IncapacityTemporary IncapacityJury TrialMedical ExpensesCement ExposureSkin Condition
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2002

Claim of Crisci v. IBM Corp.

This case concerns an employer's appeal from two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board initially granted the claimant's request to compel the employer to provide samples of chemicals to the claimant's physician for allergy testing related to dermatitis. The employer had refused, citing company policy and the commercial availability of the chemicals. After some back-and-forth decisions by Workers' Compensation Law Judges, the Board ultimately required the employer to produce samples of six specific chemicals that the physician could not obtain. The employer also appealed the Board's denial of reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed both Board decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in ordering the production of samples to ascertain the parties' substantial rights under Workers’ Compensation Law § 118, and no arbitrariness in denying reconsideration.

Workers’ Compensation BoardAppealsChemical SamplesDermatitisAllergy TestingEmployer ObligationsDiscoveryWorkers’ Compensation LawAbuse of DiscretionReconsideration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruse v. Holiday Inn

The claimant, an assistant chef at Holiday Inn, suffered severe anaphylactic shock due to a shellfish allergy, which was exacerbated by preparing seafood dishes during his employment. After multiple severe attacks, medical tests revealed the allergy in 2000. He filed for workers' compensation benefits in 2001, alleging his allergic reactions constituted an accidental injury that rendered him unfit for his job. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found an accidental injury and awarded benefits. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing against the finding of an accidental injury. The appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that severe allergies arising from workplace exposure can constitute a compensable accidental injury, especially when they aggravate a preexisting condition, and found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination.

Workers' CompensationAnaphylactic ShockShellfish AllergyOccupational InjuryAccidental InjuryPreexisting ConditionAggravation of ConditionCausal RelationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of O'Grady v. Sealright Corp.

The claimant developed employment-related dermatitis, which led to a permanent partial disability. Initially, a referee granted the self-insured employer relief from the Special Disability Fund. However, the Workmen’s Compensation Board discharged the Fund, asserting that the dermatitis was contracted during employment and did not pre-exist it. The appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that Special Fund liability can still apply if an employer retains a worker with knowledge of a permanent impairment, even if both impairments occur during the same employment. The case was remitted to the Board to determine if the subsequent impairment is separable from the initial condition and to consider other factors for the Special Fund's liability.

Special Disability FundWorkers' Compensation LawDermatitisPermanent Partial DisabilityEmployer LiabilityPre-existing ConditionRemittalAppellate ReviewMedical ConditionEmployment-Related Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1980

Claim of Snyder v. Clove Lakes Nursing Home

Claimant, a maid at Clove Lakes Nursing Home, developed contact dermatitis from detergents and water at work, leading to an initial finding of occupational disease and compensation. The case was later closed due to no further causally related disability. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding a continuing partial disability after December 1, 1978, based on medical evidence that the claimant could not return to her prior work due to detergent exposure. The employer and insurance carrier appealed, arguing lack of substantial medical evidence for continued causal relation. Applying a literal construction of Workers’ Compensation Law § 37(1), the court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that further exposure would cause renewed dermatitis, thus satisfying the definition of disability.

Occupational diseaseContact dermatitisPartial disabilityCausal relationMedical evidenceAppellate reviewDetergent exposureEmployment injuryMaidWorkers Compensation Law
References
1
Case No. ADJ179070
Regular
Sep 22, 2008

COLLEEN POGUE vs. SIERRA SURGERY CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB granted reconsideration and affirmed the WCJ's decision awarding applicant 100% permanent total disability for a work-related psychiatric injury and latex allergy, amending the award to include a cost of living adjustment.

Psyche injuryLatex allergyPermanent total disabilityReconsiderationApportionmentLabor Code section 4659(c)Cost of living adjustmentFindings and AwardWCJAppeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ6780755
Regular
Oct 08, 2012

MARYLYNN REYNOLDS vs. EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL, PROTECTED INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR SCHOOLS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The applicant alleged industrial injury to her internal system due to chemical exposure from a vandalized classroom. However, the Qualified Medical Evaluator found no evidence that the applicant's symptoms were industrially caused, suggesting they were likely related to pre-existing allergies and asthma. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for an industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationindustrial injurychemical exposureteacherfire extinguisher vandalismrespiratory systemnervous systemfaceeye irritation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1993

Archer v. IBM Corp.

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied her claim for benefits, which alleged an acquired sensitivity to chemicals from exposure at IBM Corporation. The Board determined there was insufficient evidence of a causally related occupational disease. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing expert testimony from an IBM physician, Franklin Aldrich, who found no causal link between the claimant's dermatitis and workplace chemicals, despite conflicting testimony from other experts.

Occupational DiseaseChemical SensitivityWorkers' Compensation AppealCausationDermatitisExpert Medical TestimonySufficiency of Evidence
References
1
Case No. OAK 0317695
Regular
Aug 23, 2007

PERTTI KAKSONEN vs. U.C. BERKELEY, SEDGEWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant feasible for employment, despite his latex allergy. The Board found no evidence that the applicant was unable to work in environments containing latex, citing his ability to drive long distances and complete vocational rehabilitation classes. The decision also noted that the applicant had not presented evidence to justify using the 1997 permanent disability rating schedule and that newly discovered evidence was not properly submitted.

Permanent Disability Rating ScheduleVocational RehabilitationLatex AllergyFeasible for EmploymentReconsideration DeniedLabor Code Section 5903Newly Discovered EvidenceWCJ OpinionQRR TestimonyDr. Tannenbaum Report
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Vernoia v. National Council on Compensation Insurance

The claimant, an attorney, developed allergic rhinitis due to dust and an air-conditioning malfunction at his New York City workplace, leading to his resignation in December 1983. The Workers’ Compensation Board found his condition resulted from an industrial accident in August 1983. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, stating that a dormant allergy exacerbated by gradual absorption of environmental irritants over time constitutes a disease, not an accident, under workers' compensation law. Consequently, the claim for benefits was dismissed.

Allergic RhinitisOccupational DiseaseIndustrial AccidentWorkers' Compensation BoardAllergy ExacerbationWorkplace EnvironmentCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewClaim Dismissal
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 39 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