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

Mejias v. Social Security Administration

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a determination by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare denying him Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The plaintiff's application, based on a disability claim stemming from bronchial asthma, was initially denied by an Administrative Law Judge in July 1976 and subsequently affirmed by the Appeals Council in December 1976. The court found that despite the plaintiff's subjective complaints of disability and submissions from medical social workers and treating physicians asserting a deterioration in his condition, the administrative record contained substantial evidence that his asthma responded to treatment and his symptoms were minimal. The court affirmed the Secretary's decision to deny SSI benefits, but dismissed the complaint without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to present additional, substantiated medical evidence to the Social Security Administration.

Supplemental Security IncomeSSI BenefitsDisability ClaimBronchial AsthmaAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTreating Physician OpinionSubjective SymptomsMedical Evidence
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johannesen v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Claimant, an office assistant for the City of New York, developed bronchial asthma due to prolonged exposure to tobacco smoke and dust in her crowded office. She filed for workers’ compensation benefits, initially deemed a compensable occupational disease by a WCLJ. The Workers’ Compensation Board later rescinded this, finding instead an accidental injury from repeated exposure to cigarette smoke, and remitted the case. The employer appealed, arguing preclusion by *Matter of Mack v County of Rockland* and lack of substantial evidence. The court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing *Mack* and finding substantial evidence for an unusual environmental hazard and definite disabling events leading to accidental injury.

Occupational DiseaseAccidental InjuryBronchial AsthmaCigarette Smoke ExposureWorkplace HazardWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical AggravationEnvironmental HazardSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1978

Claim of Falcone v. Western Electric Co.

The case involves an appeal of a Workers' Compensation Board decision that set the claimant's date of disablement as July 30, 1973. The claimant, an employee of Western Electric Company, Inc., developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due to polyurethane exposure, initially experiencing symptoms in 1966. While a medical report from Dr. Ehret in 1966 identified bronchial asthma, the condition was not considered disabling until July 30, 1973, when the claimant first lost work time due to respiratory issues. The Board's decision, which also discharged the Special Fund from liability under section 25-a of the Workers’ Compensation Law, was affirmed by the appellate court, finding substantial evidence to support the determination of the disablement date.

Occupational DiseaseChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseBronchial AsthmaPolyurethane ExposureToluene Diisocyanate (TD1)Date of DisablementWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial FundsSubstantial EvidenceMedical Testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1985

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bearden

Gilbert Bearden, a truck driver, sought worker's compensation for total and permanent incapacity caused by repetitious inhalation of chicken feed and chicken house dusts during employment. His pre-existing lung conditions, including emphysema and bronchial asthma, were aggravated by these occupational exposures, which a medical expert testified was a producing cause of his disability. The insurer, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, challenged the jury's finding of injury and the $90,000 award for nursing services provided by Bearden's wife. The court affirmed the jury's finding regarding injury and incapacity but deemed the nursing services award excessive, reducing it to $54,574.80. The judgment was ultimately reformed and affirmed after Bearden filed a remittitur, leading to a final recovery of $98,633.40.

Occupational DiseaseRepetitious TraumaPulmonary EmphysemaBronchial AsthmaDust InhalationAggravated Pre-existing ConditionTotal Permanent IncapacityNursing Services AwardRemittiturSufficiency of Evidence
References
4
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
Showing 1-10 of 60 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