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

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. LBO 0340807
En Banc
Jun 17, 2005

LISA SIMMONS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board holds that a utilization review report is admissible for the limited purpose of showing a dispute over industrial causation has arisen, but not to determine causation itself; the defendant must then follow the AME/QME process to resolve the causation dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationEn Banc DecisionUtilization ReviewMedical NecessityCausationLabor Code section 4610Labor Code section 4062Agreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical Evaluator
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580 of International Ass'n of Bridge

This case concerns a dispute between Local Union 580 and AFCO Metals, Inc. regarding arbitration of pension fund contributions. Local 580 claimed AFCO underpaid contributions by assigning work to Carpenters Unions that should have been allocated to Local 580 members. AFCO sought to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was jurisdictional and excluded from arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court initially dismissed AFCO's petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the dispute jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the underlying dispute is a jurisdictional matter, which the parties explicitly agreed to exclude from arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsUnion ContributionsWork AssignmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawContract InterpretationFund Delinquency
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Laredo v. Garza

Juan Garza Jr., a groundskeeper for the City of Laredo, suffered an on-the-job injury, sustaining a broken kneecap and ankle. The core dispute centered on whether additional injuries, including L4-L5 and L5-S1 herniated discs, L5-S1 radiculopathy, and complex regional pain syndrome, were compensable, with administrative and district court decisions differing. The City of Laredo appealed the district court's finding for Garza, arguing a lack of legally sufficient expert medical evidence to establish causation for the complex back and pain conditions. The appellate court ruled that expert medical testimony was necessary for these conditions, especially given the delayed reporting of symptoms and conflicting medical opinions. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, determining that Garza's compensable injuries do not include the disputed back and pain syndrome conditions due to insufficient causation evidence.

CausationExpert Medical TestimonyLay TestimonyHerniated DiscsRadiculopathyComplex Regional Pain SyndromeOn-the-job InjuryTemporal ProximitySufficiency of EvidenceDegenerative Injury
References
11
Case No. 2017-08-0203
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2017

Williamson, Rosalind v. Preofessional Care Services

Rosalind Williamson, a social worker, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits after claiming she slipped and fell at work, injuring her left shoulder and hand. Her employer, Professional Care Services (PCS), disputed the fall and the causation, citing Ms. Williamson's pre-existing chronic conditions and Dr. Sokoloff's assessment that her shoulder issues were 'likely chronic' and hand numbness 'non-specific.' The Court found that Ms. Williamson failed to meet her burden of proving medical causation, as no medical proof established that her fall contributed more than fifty percent to her conditions, and Dr. Sokoloff did not offer an opinion on medical causation related to the fall. Therefore, her request for benefits was denied.

Expedited HearingMedical Benefits ClaimTemporary Disability Benefits ClaimMedical Causation DisputePre-existing Medical ConditionsBurden of ProofOrthopedic InjuryShoulder InjuryHand InjurySlip and Fall Accident
References
2
Case No. 2021-07-0482
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2022

Wilson, Derrick v. Randstad, Inc.

Derrick Wilson, an employee of Randstad, Inc., sought an expedited hearing for medical benefits related to a work-related left-shoulder injury. Randstad disputed the claim based on late notice and causation, citing Mr. Wilson's previous shoulder injury and inconsistent reporting. The Court ruled that Mr. Wilson's delay in reporting was reasonable due to his initial belief it was a strain and fear of termination, and Randstad failed to demonstrate prejudice. Despite conflicting medical opinions on causation from his treating physicians, the Court determined that the lack of a definitive negative medical opinion on causation did not negate Randstad's obligation to provide a physician panel. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Wilson's request, ordering Randstad to provide a panel of orthopedists.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearNotice DefenseCausationPre-existing ConditionPhysician PanelTennessee Law
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05796
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2023

Sason v. Dykes Lbr. Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Raphael Sason alleged that his deceased brother's mesothelioma resulted from asbestos exposure caused by Durham Rock Hard putty, a product obtained from defendant Dykes Lumber Company, Inc., among other suppliers. Dykes Lumber moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of specific causation based on an expert's affidavit that calculated the decedent's asbestos exposure to be within ambient air levels. In opposition, plaintiff presented affidavits from a medical expert and an industrial hygienist whose reports, relying on simulation studies, concluded that the decedent's work created toxic concentrations of asbestos fibers exceeding known causative levels for mesothelioma. The Supreme Court denied the motion, recognizing a factual dispute regarding causation, and the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision.

MesotheliomaAsbestos ExposureSummary Judgment MotionCausation EvidenceExpert TestimonyIndustrial HygienistMedical Expert OpinionAppellate AffirmationToxic TortsProduct Liability
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 6,121 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