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 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mlodozeniec v. Trio Asbestos Removal Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding which insurance carrier is liable for workers' compensation benefits for a claimant suffering from an occupational disease. The claimant, an asbestos handler for Trio Asbestos Removal Corporation, developed pleural and hyperactive airway disease. Trio was insured by the State Insurance Fund (SIF) during the claimant's employment, and later by Zurich American Insurance Company. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially held Zurich liable, but the Board reversed, finding SIF liable as the insurer at the time of last exposure. The Court clarified that the carrier on the risk on the date of disablement is responsible, provided a policy is in place at that time. Therefore, the Court reversed the Board’s decision, holding Zurich liable, and remitted the matter for further proceedings. The Court also rejected Zurich's argument for remittal to determine if SIF should be permitted to deny coverage, finding no delay in SIF's disclaimer.

Occupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureWorkers' Compensation LiabilityInsurance Carrier ResponsibilityDate of DisablementLast Exposure RulePleurisyHyperactive Airway DiseaseStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04437 [186 AD3d 401]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2020

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.

This case, part of the New York City Asbestos Litigation, involved claims from William E. Robaey and Marlena Robaey against Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, among others, for peritoneal mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure from gaskets. A jury awarded significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium. On appeal, Federal-Mogul challenged the sufficiency of evidence for specific causation and the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the finding of specific causation, distinguishing the facts from prior rulings, particularly Juni. However, the court found the damages for past pain and suffering and past loss of consortium materially deviated from reasonable compensation and ordered a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff agreed to a stipulated reduction.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaToxic TortSpecific CausationExpert TestimonyDamages RemittiturPain and SufferingLoss of ConsortiumAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
16
Case No. 90 Civ. 8473, 92 Civ. 3900, 92 Civ. 3901
Regular Panel Decision

Asbestos Litigation

Defendant Raymark Industries, Inc. moved to dismiss, stay, or transfer four of six consolidated asbestos actions. The plaintiffs in these actions (Greff, Moore, McPadden, Strafford, Ciletti, Conway) alleged exposure to asbestos causing diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer. Raymark based its motion on claims of insufficient service of process, ineffective amendment of complaints to include Raymark as a defendant, and the applicability of abstention doctrine due to parallel state court proceedings for Ciletti and Strafford. The court denied all aspects of Raymark's motion. It found that the plaintiffs had complied with service requirements under New York Business Corporation Law § 307 and that the amendment adding Raymark as a defendant was authorized by a standing Case Management Order for asbestos litigation, overriding the need for specific court leave. Furthermore, the court determined that the conditions for federal abstention under the Colorado River doctrine were not met, upholding the federal court's obligation to exercise its jurisdiction. The court also clarified that Raymark was indeed joined to the Greff and Moore actions through a prior consolidation order, despite Raymark's bankruptcy stay arguments.

Asbestos LitigationMultidistrict LitigationMotion to DismissService of ProcessAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)Abstention DoctrineColorado River AbstentionParallel State and Federal ProceedingsJurisdiction
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feher Rubbish Removal, Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor

The appellate court addressed appeals by the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) concerning judgments that annulled the DOL's determination that prevailing wages must be paid by Feher Rubbish Removal, Inc. and Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. for refuse collection, specifically questioning if this applied to private buildings. The court first clarified that the actions were purely for declaratory judgment, not CPLR article 78 proceedings to annul determinations. Interpreting Labor Law § 231 (1), the court found that its plain language and legislative intent did not limit its application to public buildings. Consequently, the court concluded that employers are indeed obligated to pay prevailing wages to employees collecting garbage or refuse from both public and private buildings under municipal contracts. The judgments of the lower court were modified, and declarations were amended to reflect this obligation.

Prevailing WageLabor LawStatutory InterpretationPublic WorksBuilding Service WorkGarbage CollectionRefuse RemovalMunicipal ContractsDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. SAC 308622 SAC 308623 SAC 309351 SAC 323463 SAC 355784
Regular
May 09, 2007

DELETTE ZIEGELMANN-JACKSON vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The applicant sought removal to challenge the WCJ's deferral of a ruling on a petition to enforce a subpoena for personal items, arguing it unfairly required a second deposition. The Appeals Board dismissed removal in several cases where no issues were pending, but granted removal in case number SAC 355784. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order deferring the subpoena ruling, allowing for potential further depositions if warranted, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalPetition to EnforceSubpoena Duces TecumDeferred RulingIndustrial InjuryLabor Code Section 132aDiscriminationPrivacyDeposition
References
0
Case No. 2018 NYSlipOp 08059
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2018

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. A.O Smith Water Prods. Co.

This case involves an appeal in the New York City Asbestos Litigation where Mary Juni, as administratrix of Arthur H. Juni, Jr.'s estate, sued Ford Motor Company. Mr. Juni, who died of mesothelioma, was an auto mechanic exposed to asbestos from Ford vehicles. The core issue was whether the evidence sufficiently established that Ford's conduct was a proximate cause of Mr. Juni's injuries, particularly concerning the toxicity of asbestos in friction products after being subjected to high temperatures during manufacturing and use. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, finding the evidence insufficient to establish proximate causation under existing legal standards, specifically a missing link in the proof regarding the toxicity of the altered asbestos. Concurring opinions further elaborated on the failure to establish a connection between Ford's products and the decedent's exposure or the general causation related to altered chrysotile asbestos. A dissenting opinion argued that the jury's verdict, finding Ford 49% liable, was supported by sufficient evidence and not 'utterly irrational,' highlighting the evidence of Mr. Juni's exposure to asbestos-laden dust from Ford vehicle parts and Ford's internal recognition of asbestos dangers.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaProximate CauseProduct LiabilityToxicologyFriction ProductsChrysotile AsbestosExpert TestimonyJury VerdictAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. ADJ1943415 (LBO 0381428)
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

ADALBERTO JUAREZ vs. P.S. STIX INCORPORATED, NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for removal regarding an order to disclose a global settlement with a co-defendant. The Appeals Board found the procedural record deficient, preventing timely review of the removal petition. Ultimately, the Board granted removal on its own motion to address the "procedural morass." The Board rescinded the WCJ's order reinstating a prior minute order and dismissed the lien claimant's petition as moot, allowing for an in-camera review of the settlement agreement.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantGlobal SettlementConfidentiality clauseNon-Disclosure clauseCompromise and ReleaseMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJOrder Setting Aside
References
4
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06557 [143 AD3d 483]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation

This case, Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, involves an appeal by Crane Co. against a jury verdict awarding damages to Laraine Sweberg, as executrix of Ivan Sweberg, for mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the jury's finding that Crane Co. was liable for failing to warn about asbestos hazards, as it promoted asbestos-containing materials alongside its products despite knowing the dangers since the 1930s. The court found sufficient evidence to support proximate causation and the submission of recklessness to the jury. However, the court modified the judgment regarding the award for future pain and suffering, conditionally vacating it and ordering a new trial unless the plaintiff stipulates to a reduced award of $4.5 million.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaFailure to WarnProximate CauseJury VerdictDamages RemittiturFuture Pain and SufferingAppellate ReviewProduct LiabilityAsbestos Exposure
References
6
Case No. ADJ80340084
Regular
Apr 23, 2013

KEITH CRABTREE vs. CITY OF TURLOCK, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision addresses a defendant's petition for removal. The Board denied removal regarding the WCJ's continuance of trial to April 29, 2013. However, the Board granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's order compelling the defendant to produce claims adjustor Rebecca Huiras and the claims file without a subpoena. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

RemovalWCJContinuance of trialClaims adjustorWitness productionClaims fileSubpoenaRescindedReturned to trial levelDecision after removal
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,321 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