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. Appeal Nos. 5104, 5105, 5106, 5107, 5108, 5109, 5110, 5111
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2001

Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc.

This case involves an appeal by defendants-appellants from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied their motions for summary judgment in a series of lawsuits concerning asbestos exposure from Worthington pumps. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding sufficient issues of fact to preclude dismissal. Evidence presented included defendant Worthington's own admission of the high prevalence of its pumps on Navy ships, testimony from workers regarding Worthington pumps in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and Worthington's use of asbestos-containing components like gaskets and packing. The court also noted a Worthington manual referencing asbestos and government specifications requiring asbestos use, questioning whether the pumps could be safely operated without asbestos insulation despite Worthington not manufacturing or installing it.

Asbestos ExposureProduct LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty to WarnManufacturer LiabilityAppellate ReviewOccupational ExposureNavy ShipsGasketsPumps
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2013

Claim of DePascale v. Magazine Distributors, Inc.

The claimant applied for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma developed due to exposure to toxic substances at the employer's former nuclear fuel rod facility. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially reversed a WCLJ decision, finding insufficient evidence of a causal link. Later, the Board granted the claimant's request to consider new medical evidence, rescinded the WCLJ’s decision, and remitted the matter for a new determination. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed these Board decisions and the subsequent denial of their request for reconsideration. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals, deeming the Board’s decisions interlocutory and not final, thus not subject to piecemeal review.

Workers' CompensationCancerToxic ExposureCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceInterlocutory AppealAppeal DismissalRemittalBoard ReviewNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Valenti v. Penn Plax Plastics

The claimant, exposed to asbestos between 1965 and 1972, developed asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, and lung cancer. His 1995 workers' compensation claim was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board, which found his lung cancer causally related to asbestos exposure occurring before July 1, 1974, thus falling under the 'dust disease' rule requiring total disability for compensation. The claimant appealed, arguing lung cancer is not a dust disease. The appellate court reversed and remitted the decision, clarifying that while lung cancer itself is not a dust disease, the pre-1974 restriction applies if it's causally related to a dust disease like asbestosis. The court noted the Board failed to make a specific finding on this causal link.

asbestos exposurelung cancerasbestosisworkers' compensationdust diseasetotal disabilitypartial disabilitycausationremittalappellate review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. Olin Corp.

In this worker's compensation case, Mr. Evans, the employee, suffered permanent partial disability after three exposures to liquid chlorine at work. The employer appealed a chancellor's decree awarding Mr. Evans benefits for a twenty percent disability to the body as a whole. The appellate court affirmed the chancellor's decision, finding material evidence in the record, including medical testimony, to support the findings of medical causation and permanency of disability. Furthermore, the court deemed the employer's appeal frivolous, entitling Mr. Evans to damages. The case was remanded to the chancellor to determine the amount of these damages, including court costs and attorney's fees.

Worker's CompensationChlorine ExposurePermanent Partial DisabilityMedical CausationFrivolous AppealChemical PneumoniaLung InjuryAlveolar InfiltrationImpairment RatingAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 14-01-00432-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2004

Wallace and Deanna Dyall v. Simpson Pasadena Paper Company

This case involves an appeal regarding a claim for damages due to injuries sustained by an independent contractor's employee from chlorine dioxide vapor inhalation. The employee and his wife sued the property owner for negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se. The trial court granted summary judgment for the property owner, citing Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which limits owner liability to independent contractors. The appellate court affirmed, finding no evidence of the property owner exercising control over the work or possessing actual knowledge of the danger without providing adequate warning, thus upholding the summary judgment.

Independent Contractor LiabilityPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimsGross NegligenceNegligence Per SeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeChapter 95Control Over WorkActual Knowledge of Danger
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galindo v. Old Republic Insurance Co.

Rito Galindo, an ASARCO employee, suffered severe pulmonary fibrosis and bronchiolitis obliterans in February 1992 due to sulfur dioxide exposure, leading to a claim for lifetime income benefits (LIBs). Despite his severe incapacitation and inability to work, the Workers’ Compensation Commission and Appeals Panel denied his claim, finding his injuries did not strictly meet the Texas Labor Code § 408.161 criteria for LIBs. Galindo appealed the trial court's no-evidence summary judgment, which favored Old Republic Insurance Co., asserting that medical affidavits from Dr. Eugenio Armendariz and Dr. Perry Wolfe provided sufficient evidence of a total and permanent loss of use of his hands and feet, satisfying the statutory requirements for LIBs. The appellate court agreed, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed, and thus reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsSummary JudgmentPulmonary FibrosisBronchiolitis ObliteransSulfur Dioxide ExposureTexas Labor CodeTotal Loss of UseMedical AffidavitsPermanent Disability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wallace v. Simpson Pasadena Paper Co.

Wallace Dyall, an employee of Industrial Pipe and Plastic, Inc. (IPP), and his wife, Deanna Dyall, sued Simpson Pasadena Paper Company (Simpson) for negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se after Wallace Dyall allegedly inhaled chlorine dioxide vapors while repairing a leaking pipe at Simpson's paper mill. Simpson filed for summary judgment, arguing immunity under Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as it exercised no control over the repairs. The trial court granted summary judgment for Simpson, which was affirmed by a divided panel on rehearing. On en banc rehearing, the court again affirmed the trial court's take-nothing summary judgment, finding no evidence of Simpson's control over the manner of work or actual knowledge of the danger as required by Chapter 95. The dissenting opinion argued the majority erred by expanding the scope of the motion, applying the wrong standard of review, and misinterpreting legislative history.

Personal InjuryNegligenceGross NegligenceNegligence Per SeSummary JudgmentProperty Owner LiabilityIndependent ContractorTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 95Workplace SafetyChlorine Dioxide Exposure
References
29
Case No. LBO 0377371
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

EDUBIJES TORREZ vs. RED HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, CHUBB SERVICES CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Chubb Insurance's petition for reconsideration, affirming the original finding that Edubijes Torrez sustained a cumulative trauma injury (leiomyosarcoma) due to chemical exposure as a groundskeeper. The Board found that despite the provision of protective gear in 1998, the applicant's exposure continued through his last year of employment, making Chubb, the insurer during that period, liable for the $100\%$ permanent disability award. Chubb's argument that exposure ceased in 1998 was rejected due to evidence of ineffective protective gear and continued exposure.

LeiomyosarcomaCumulative traumaLabor Code section 5500.5Injurious exposureRespirator protective gearLatency periodIndustrial chemical exposurePermanent disabilityGroundskeeperRed Hill Country Club
References
3
Case No. ADJ11721215
Regular
Mar 20, 2023

GLEN HODGES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns a firefighter's claim for melanoma under Labor Code section 3212.1, which presumes cancer is industrially caused. While the applicant raised the presumption through evidence of carcinogen exposure, the Appeals Board overturned the initial finding of industrial injury due to melanoma. The Board found the presumption was rebutted by expert medical opinion concluding the applicant's melanoma was not reasonably linked to industrial sun exposure, citing significant childhood sun exposure, tanning bed use, family history, and minimal workplace sun exposure to the affected area. The Board therefore granted reconsideration and amended the decision to exclude melanoma as an industrial injury, though actinic keratosis was still found to be industrially caused.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionrebutted presumptionqualified medical evaluatorindustrial injuryactinic keratosismelanomafirefightercarcinogenInternational Agency for Research on Cancer
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1998

Claim of Gardner v. Structure Tone of NY, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits, alleging asbestosis due to asbestos exposure during employment as an elevator operator at a construction site. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant partially disabled by asbestosis, an occupational disease, and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, primarily disputing the claimant's asbestos exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision after finding sufficient evidence of exposure and asbestosis. On further appeal, the employer argued that asbestosis was not inherent to an elevator operator's job, but the appellate court declined to consider this issue as it was not raised in the administrative appeal to the Board. The court also noted the employer abandoned the exposure issue by not raising it on the current appeal, thus affirming the Board's decision.

AsbestosisOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsElevator OperatorAppealAdministrative AppealJudicial ReviewPreservation of IssueWCLJ Decision
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 883 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