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

Nugent v. Rogosin Institute

Peggy Nugent, a former head nurse at Rogosin Institute, Inc.'s Kidney Center, sued her employer for wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and New York City Administrative Code (NYCAC). Nugent claimed she developed allergic asthma due to glutaraldehyde, a chemical used in the workplace, leading to her termination. After experiencing severe breathing problems, taking leave, and having her request for an office relocation denied, she was fired in February 1997. Rogosin moved for summary judgment, arguing Nugent's asthma was not a 'qualifying disability' under the ADA because it only prevented her from working at their specific facility, not a broad range of jobs, and did not substantially limit her ability to breathe outside the workplace. The court, citing established precedents, agreed that her condition did not meet the ADA's definition of a qualifying disability. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims.

ADAEmployment DiscriminationDisability RightsAllergic AsthmaWorkplace AccommodationSummary JudgmentWrongful TerminationGlutaraldehyde ExposureOccupational HealthNew York Human Rights Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Wilson v. Yonkers Raceway/Empire City

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits, alleging she developed breathing problems from workplace environmental irritants. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled she sustained an accidental injury, which the employer subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The claimant's treating allergist linked her chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis to exposure to mold or air conditioning contaminants at her workplace, located near horse barns, where black particles from vents had been reported. Although the employer's expert suggested emphysema from smoking, he conceded claimant's positive serology for hypersensitivity pneumonitis antigens, leading the court to uphold the Board's evaluation of conflicting medical evidence.

Workplace exposureBreathing problemsHypersensitivity pneumonitisEnvironmental irritantsMedical evidenceConflicting medical evidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAccidental injuryAppellate reviewSubstantial evidence
References
4
Case No. 533303
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Leyda Molina

Claimant, a flight attendant, developed respiratory problems shortly after beginning to wear a new employer-provided uniform in July 2018. Her symptoms, including cough and shortness of breath, progressively worsened. After consulting Dr. John Meyer, an occupational medicine specialist, she was diagnosed with an allergic response to the uniform and her symptoms improved upon discontinuing its use. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed her claim based on opposing medical opinions, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, crediting Dr. Meyer's findings and establishing the claim for occupational disease with a disablement date of June 10, 2019. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseFlight AttendantRespiratory ProblemsAllergic ResponseWork UniformCausally-RelatedWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Safford v. Cigna Ins. Co., Texas

Karen K. Safford appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Cigna Insurance in her workers' compensation case. Safford, an aircraft assembler, developed breathing problems and was diagnosed with asthmatic and industrial bronchitis, which she believed were work-related due to chemical exposure. The core legal issue was whether Safford provided timely notice of her occupational disease to her employer, Lockheed, as required by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court's summary judgment was reversed because the appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding when Safford knew or should have known her injury was likely work-related, applying a refined "discovery rule" for latent diseases. The case was remanded for trial to determine these factual issues.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseLatent DiseaseTimely NoticeSummary JudgmentAsthmatic BronchitisIndustrial BronchitisChemical ExposureTexas LawDiscovery Rule
References
16
Case No. 2016-08-0212, 8325-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2016

Fowler, Landon v. Mueller Industries

Landon Fowler, a 67-year-old employee of Mueller Industries, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits for an alleged exposure injury from a malfunctioning chroming machine. Mueller Industries asserted that Fowler failed to establish causation, provide proper notice, and file his claim within the statute of limitations. The Court found the dispositive issue to be causation and held that Mr. Fowler failed to present sufficient medical evidence linking his conditions, such as breathing problems, shaking, and vertigo, to his alleged exposure at work. The Court noted that current law requires a showing that an injury contributed more than fifty percent to the disablement with a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Consequently, the Court denied his request for medical and temporary benefits.

Expedited HearingCausationMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsExposure InjuryIndustrial AccidentChroming MachineMedical EvidenceEmployer LiabilityStatute of Limitations Defense
References
4
Case No. No. 17757
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 1980

TEXAS EMP. INS. ASS'N v. Thompson

Thomas David Thompson, a painter-sandblaster, suffered an injury during work when a sandblasting machine accidently activated, causing the hose-nozzle to strike him in the face and chest. This incident led to severe pain in his lungs and breathing problems, making him unable to continue his work. A jury found that the injury was the producing cause of total and permanent incapacity, leading to an award of worker's compensation benefits. The Texas Employers' Insurance Association appealed, arguing a lack of medical evidence to support the claim and suggesting that Thompson's condition (silicosis) was pre-existing and unrelated to the injury. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that lay witness testimony can establish injury and disability, even when contradicted by medical experts, particularly when a direct injury is alleged.

Worker's CompensationPersonal InjurySandblasting AccidentTotal IncapacityPermanent IncapacityLay Witness TestimonyMedical Expert TestimonyCausationSilicosisTexas Law
References
16
Case No. 531185
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2021

Matter of Lewandowski v. Safeway Envtl. Corp.

Zdzislaw Lewandowski, a former World Trade Center cleanup worker, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that disallowed his claim for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Lewandowski sought benefits for various ailments, including depression, breathing problems, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and rhinitis. The Board had established his claims for GERD and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but maintained the disallowance for COPD due to insufficient evidence of a causal relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision regarding the disallowance of the COPD claim, finding it supported by substantial evidence. However, the court reversed the Board's denial to revisit Lewandowski's date of disablement and average weekly wage, remitting the matter for consideration of the date most beneficial to the claimant under Workers' Compensation Law § 164, and for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

World Trade Center cleanupChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseGERDPTSDAgoraphobiaPanic DisorderCausationMedical EvidenceDate of DisablementAverage Weekly Wage
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schapiro v. New York City Department of Health

Plaintiff David B. Schapiro sued his former employers, the City of New York and its agency, the New York City Department of Health, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a common law negligence claim. Schapiro claimed he developed respiratory problems from poor workplace conditions between 1989 and 1994, arguing the City failed to provide reasonable accommodation. The City moved for summary judgment, contending Schapiro was not disabled under the ADA, his claims were time-barred, and he failed to mitigate damages, also asserting his negligence claim was preempted by New York's Worker's Compensation Law. The court granted the City's motion, ruling that several of Schapiro's claims were time-barred and that he failed to establish a prima facie case of disability under the ADA as his impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity like breathing or working. Furthermore, the court found Schapiro's negligence claim was exclusively covered by the New York Worker's Compensation Law.

Disability DiscriminationADASummary JudgmentRespiratory ProblemsWorkplace ConditionsReasonable AccommodationTime BarEEOCNegligence ClaimWorker's Compensation Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1971

Claim of Bernsley v. Telemarine Communications Co.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which allowed a claim for death benefits. The decedent, a principal in the appellant corporation, died from cardiac failure during an emotional discussion about a vault tax assessed against a related corporation and paid by the appellant. The board found that the tax problems arose from decedent's employment with the appellant and that the emotional strain caused his death. The court affirmed the board’s finding that the problems over the vault tax arose out of and during the course of decedent’s employment and that the emotional strain and anxiety from dealing with the tax problems caused decedent’s death.

Death benefitsCardiac failureEmotional strainEmployment-related deathVault taxWorkmen's Compensation Board appealCausationSubstantial evidenceEmployer liability
References
2
Case No. 06-06-00090-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2007

Dennis Barfield v. State

Dennis Barfield was convicted of driving while intoxicated after being stopped by officers who observed signs of impairment and breath test results showing a blood-alcohol content above the legal limit. On appeal, Barfield contended that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of the State's breath-testing expert regarding the Intoxilyzer 5000. The appellate court examined his arguments concerning the machine's malfunctions, tolerance, external elements affecting results, warranty, and temperature issues. The court concluded that Barfield had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the expert and found no abuse of discretion by the trial court in limiting further questioning. The judgment of conviction was affirmed, as the jury had sufficient evidence for conviction even without the breath test results, based on Barfield's own statements and officer testimony.

Driving While IntoxicatedDWI ConvictionBreath TestIntoxilyzer 5000Cross-Examination LimitationAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionConstitutional RightsConfrontation ClauseEvidence Admissibility
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 264 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