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 Mazayoff v. A.C.V.L. Companies, Inc.

Claimant, a security guard, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying benefits for bronchial asthma, which he attributed to work conditions like car fumes and extreme temperatures. The Board found no causally related injury or occupational disease. The appellate court affirmed, stating the Board's decision was supported by substantial medical evidence. Two physicians, Alan Schecter and Jonathan Sumner, concluded that claimant's asthma could not be determined with medical certainty to be caused by his work environment, despite potential exacerbation. The court upheld the Board's deference in resolving conflicting medical testimony.

Workers' CompensationBronchial AsthmaOccupational DiseaseAccidental InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceSecurity GuardEnvironmental Conditions
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Horne v. Barclay Home Products

Claimant, a turner and inspector, developed occupational asthma from toxic polyurethane fumes at work in January 1985. She collapsed and was diagnosed with occupational asthma, preventing her return to work. Initially, a WCLJ found partial disability, but the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this to a total and permanent disability from August 1985 onwards. The employer and its carrier appealed this finding. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's occupational asthma prevented her from earning any wages in suitable work, even in an environmentally pure atmosphere, due to the severity of her condition and sensitivity to common irritants.

Occupational AsthmaPermanent Total DisabilityPartial DisabilityToxic FumesPolyurethane FumesWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceCausally Related DisabilityIndustrial Setting
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Garafolo v. Arms Hills Supermarkets

This is an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from September 21, 1978, disallowing a compensation claim. The claimant, a meat wrapper, developed asthma exacerbated by polyvinyl chloride fumes at work. She filed a claim in May 1975, stating disablement from "meat wrapper’s asthma" as of July 28, 1975, when she became aware of its occupational cause. The Board denied the claim under Workers’ Compensation Law § 40, finding the disease was contracted more than 12 months before disablement. The claimant argued "meat wrapper’s asthma" was not a known condition until 1975. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, citing that the disease's aggravation in employment constituted contraction and that the 12-month rule applied, irrespective of when the claimant gained knowledge of the occupational link.

Meat Wrapper's AsthmaOccupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation LawDisease ContractionDate of DisablementCausal RelationshipAsthma ExacerbationClaim TimelinessAggravation of Pre-existing Condition
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05500 [152 AD3d 859]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2017

Claim of Murphy v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District

Claimant Marie Murphy sustained work-related injuries. Her employer, Newburgh Enlarged City School District, sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d), citing Murphy's preexisting asthma and knee injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's determination that the employer was entitled to reimbursement, finding insufficient evidence that Murphy's asthma hindered her employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision regarding asthma, noting that controlled conditions do not constitute a hindrance. However, the Court reversed the Board's decision because it failed to address the issue of reimbursement based on Murphy's osteoarthritis in her right knee, remitting the matter for further consideration of that specific issue.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementSpecial Disability FundPreexisting ConditionPermanent ImpairmentGeneral EmployabilityAsthmaOsteoarthritisMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Board ReversalAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Waddy v. Barnard College

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision affirming the disallowance of a claimant's application for benefits. The claimant, an employee in a mail room, alleged that exposure to dust and mold due to poor ventilation at her workplace caused her to develop disabling asthma. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, finding no causal relationship between her asthma and employment, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Board. The Board's determination was based on the medical opinions of the treating pulmonologist, William Marino, who could not establish work-related causation, and an independent medical examiner, Carl Friedman, who concluded that the asthma was not workplace-induced, referencing a negative indoor air quality test. While the claimant's family physician, Rajesh Patel, suggested a probable work-related allergen exposure, the Board resolved the conflicting medical evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the ruling that the claimant did not sustain a causally related injury.

Workers' CompensationAsthmaOccupational DiseaseCausationMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Treating PhysicianEnvironmental IrritantsWorkplace ConditionsAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wachtler v. AT&T

The claimant, an office worker, developed a sinus infection and later pneumonia, progressing to asthma, which he attributed to secondhand smoke in his workplace. He retired in June 1995 and filed a workers' compensation claim. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury work-related, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, crediting the employer’s physician who stated no causal link. The claimant appealed this reversal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the claimant’s asthma was not caused or permanently aggravated by his work environment, as the Board was free to credit the employer's medical testimony.

Workers' CompensationAsthmaSecondhand SmokeWorkplace InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceOccupational DiseaseRespiratory Illness
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Harrington v. L.C. Whitford Co.

The claimant, a construction worker, experienced a severe exacerbation of pre-existing asthma after exposure to burning lead paint fumes in June 1996. A certified pulmonologist, Richard Evans, determined the exposure caused a permanent and total disability. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found an accidental injury causing permanent and total disability, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed in August 2001. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the condition was pre-existing and only temporarily aggravated. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support that the work-site exposure significantly exacerbated the claimant's stabilized asthma, leading to a permanent and total disability.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityAsthma ExacerbationOccupational ExposureLead Paint FumesPre-existing ConditionMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewIndustrial Accident
References
14
Case No. 5070 1647
Regular Panel Decision

Weiner v. Glenman Industrial & Commercial Contractor Corp.

Claimant, an assistant project manager, sustained work-related injuries to her back, neck, and left shoulder, leading to a permanent partial disability classification. The employer, Glenman Indus. & Commercial Contr., and its carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, citing claimant's preexisting asthma as a contributing factor to a materially greater disability. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially granted this application, but the Special Disability Fund appealed the decision. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence that the claimant's asthma constituted a permanent impairment that hindered her job potential. Consequently, the court determined the Board's finding of substantial evidence for reimbursement was incorrect and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting Permanent ImpairmentMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityJob Potential HindranceSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionAsthma ConditionPermanent Partial Disability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marley v. Board of Trustees

Petitioners Lawrence J. Harley and Gerard Ledwith, retired firefighters who participated in Ground Zero rescue and recovery, challenged the denial of their accident disability retirement benefits. The Fire Department's Medical Committee found them unfit for duty due to clinical asthma with airway hyperreactivity, warning of severe risks from future exposure. However, the Medical Board denied their applications, finding insufficient evidence of disability and concluding they had only mild intermittent asthma. The court annulled the Medical Board's decisions, ruling that they were conclusory and lacked an articulated, fact-based medical opinion connecting the diagnosed condition to the performance requirements or safety risks of firefighting. The case was remanded to the Board of Trustees for new medical reports and determinations.

Firefighter disability benefitsAccident disability retirementLine-of-duty retirementGround Zero rescue workersWorld Trade Center Disability LawAsthma with airway hyperreactivityMedical Board determinationAdministrative Code Section 13-353Judicial review of administrative decisionsAnnulment and remand
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cole v. Heckler

Plaintiff, a 35-year-old man suffering from severe asthma and chronic bronchitis, had his Social Security disability benefits terminated by the defendant, who claimed he had regained the ability to work. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the termination, finding the plaintiff's conditions did not meet disability criteria. The Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ's decision. However, the District Court reversed the defendant's decision and remanded the case, citing significant errors by the ALJ. The errors included misapplying "Listed Impairments" regulations regarding intensive treatment for asthma, failing to consider the cumulative impact of plaintiff's various impairments and medication side effects, and improperly discrediting the plaintiff's and his father's testimony, as well as the reports from the treating physician, Dr. V.

Social Security DisabilityAsthmaChronic BronchitisALJ ErrorRemandMedical EvidenceTreating PhysicianCredibility AssessmentListed ImpairmentsSummary Judgment Motion
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 48 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