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

Stromski v. Jefferson Auto Body

The claimant, an auto body repairer for 27 years, sought workers' compensation benefits for stomach cancer, attributing it to occupational exposure to chromium and talc. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied his claim, concluding that his disease was not causally related to his occupation after resolving conflicting expert medical testimony against him. The Board credited the carrier's expert, an internal medicine specialist, who testified that studies only link a specific type of chromium to carcinogenicity in the upper respiratory tract, not stomach cancer. This expert testimony successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that resolving conflicts in medical testimony, particularly regarding causation, falls within the Board's province. Additionally, the claimant's appeal from the denial of reconsideration was deemed abandoned.

Occupational DiseaseStomach CancerCausationMedical Expert TestimonyChromium ExposureTalc ExposureBurden of ProofStatutory PresumptionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Castaldo v. Fee Oil Co.

Claimant sustained serious injuries in a work-related accident. Sixteen months later, he was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, which he contended was precipitated by stress from the accident. The Workers’ Compensation Board heard conflicting medical testimony on the causal link between stress and diabetes, ultimately finding the condition causally related to the accident. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the Board erred in establishing causation. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's resolution of conflicting medical testimony involved questions of fact and credibility, which should not be disturbed.

Workers' CompensationDiabetes MellitusCausationStress-Induced IllnessWork InjuryMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCompensable InjuryEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Karatas v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, filed July 29, 1991, which denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits on the grounds that she did not sustain a causally related disability to her spine. Expert medical evidence, including testimony from an impartial specialist appointed by the Board, indicated that the claimant's disability was not casually related to her employment. This testimony provided substantial evidence to support the Board's finding. The appellate court noted that any conflicting medical opinion presented does not alter the result, as such conflicts are to be resolved by the Board. Consequently, the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board was affirmed without costs.

Causal RelationshipMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate ReviewBoard FindingsConflicting Medical OpinionAffirmed DecisionSpinal Disability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2003

Claim of Papadakis v. Volmar Construction, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying benefits to a carpenter who experienced a myocardial infarction. The claimant alleged the injury was causally related to his work, citing chest pain after lifting a cabinet. However, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge found his testimony not credible, a decision upheld by the Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's ruling, emphasizing its discretion in evaluating witness credibility and weighing conflicting evidence. The claimant's testimony was found inconsistent with his disability benefit application and hospital records, further supported by conflicting medical opinions regarding causation.

CausationCredibilityMyocardial InfarctionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionMedical EvidenceConflicting TestimonyInjury ClaimDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 1989

Vermette v. Utica-Oswego Motor Express

The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and awarded workers' compensation benefits. This decision was appealed. The appellate court reviewed the Board's finding, which was supported by the testimony of the claimant’s expert medical witness. This expert concluded that the neurological damage to the claimant’s brain resulted from head trauma due to a fall and a subsequent craniotomy. Despite conflicting testimony from the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier’s expert medical witness, the Board resolved these conflicts. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that its finding of a causally related disability was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryHead TraumaCraniotomyNeurological DamageMedical TestimonyCausally Related DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 1987

Claim of Brush v. New York University Medical Center

The claimant, an animal research technician for New York University Medical Center, was exposed to toxic chemicals and mice, developing several health issues including bleeding dyscrasia, thrombocytopenia, and later viral meningeal encephalitis. Her physician testified that her condition was causally related to exposure to mice and their droppings. Despite conflicting medical testimony, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's denial, finding a work-related disability. The self-insured employer appealed this decision, arguing a lack of substantial evidence. The Appellate Division, however, affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its province to resolve conflicting medical testimony.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseViral Meningeal EncephalitisThrombocytopeniaAnimal Research TechnicianExposure to AnimalsCausal RelationshipMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mancini v. Scotia Police Department

A police officer suffered work-related physical injuries in 1973. Years later, in 1979, he filed a claim for severe depression and nervous exhaustion, alleging these conditions were caused by his police duties or the initial 1973 accident. Both applications were denied by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found no causal relationship between his emotional disturbance and his employment. The Board's decision was based on conflicting medical testimonies, ultimately crediting doctors who found no job-related link over the claimant's psychiatrist and an impartial psychiatrist whose opinion was conditional on unproven allegations of harassment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's role as the finder of fact in resolving testimonial and medical conflicts.

Workers' CompensationEmotional DisturbanceDepressive NeurosisPolice OfficerCausationMedical Testimony ConflictBoard Decision ReviewHarassment AllegationsMental Health ClaimAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 1975

the Claim of Forest Westfall v. Linesville Construction Co.

The claimant, a 44-year-old pipe line construction worker, sustained a left eye injury in 1971, leading to enucleation. Twenty years prior, he had lost four fingers of his left hand due to an injury in Ohio. The Workmen's Compensation Board found a 95% loss of use of the left hand, concluding he was not totally and permanently disabled under section 15 (subd 8, par [c]) of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, as he retained full thumb motion. Conflicting medical testimonies regarding the extent of his hand disability were presented. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, citing that the board's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence and that determining conflicting medical testimony is within the board's purview.

Workers' CompensationPermanent DisabilityHand InjuryEye InjuryMedical TestimonyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLoss of UsePrior InjuryDisability Percentage
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Asberry v. Aetna Insurance Co.

Annie Mae Asberry, an employee, sued Aetna Insurance Company for worker's compensation benefits after a fall at work resulted in a knee injury. A jury found temporary total loss of use of her leg from September 1977 to March 1978, and a 55% permanent partial loss thereafter. Asberry appealed the jury's findings, arguing they were against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, citing conflicting medical testimonies from Dr. Gunn and Dr. Mahon. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury was within its province to resolve conflicting evidence and the findings were not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The court also addressed and overruled a point of error regarding the admissibility of evidence about refused employment, finding it permissible due to the appellant's own testimony.

Worker's CompensationKnee InjuryPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceMedical TestimonyConflicting EvidenceJury VerdictPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total Disability
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,761 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