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

Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC

Brenda Cornell sued 360 West 51st Street Corp. for personal injuries allegedly caused by indoor exposure to dampness and mold in her Manhattan apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding Cornell failed to prove general or specific causation under the Frye standard. The Appellate Division subsequently reversed this, suggesting Cornell's expert opinion had "some support" in scientific literature. However, the Court of Appeals, in this opinion, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Cornell failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court reiterated that scientific "association" does not equate to "causation" and found her expert's differential diagnosis insufficient due to lack of exposure quantification and inadequate ruling out of other causes. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was ultimately granted.

Mold ExposurePersonal InjuryCausationFrye StandardScientific EvidenceExpert Witness TestimonySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEnvironmental HealthDifferential Diagnosis
References
10
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00690
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2024

Rodriguez v. Fawn E. Fourth St. LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was denied, and defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted. The Appellate Division modified this to deny defendants' motion as to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, while affirming other aspects. The court found triable issues regarding whether the replacement of a 700-pound water heater constituted a 'repair' under Labor Law § 240 (1) and if an elevation differential created a hazardous gravitational force. However, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was correctly dismissed due to lack of evidence for a specific Industrial Code violation or proximate causation.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWater Heater RepairElevation-Related HazardGravitational ForceIndustrial Code ViolationProximate CausationConstruction Work
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Plaintiff sustained severe hand injuries while moving an 800-pound wire reel down stairs using an improvised pulley system on defendant's premises. The District Court granted judgment for the plaintiff, finding Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable due to a gravity-related risk. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the statute's applicability to elevation-related injuries and direct causation by gravity, particularly when neither the worker nor an object directly falls. The Court of Appeals determined that the key inquiry is whether the injury resulted from inadequate protection against a risk arising from a significant elevation differential. It concluded that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct consequence of the force of gravity on the inadequately secured reel, making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The first certified question was answered affirmatively, and the second was deemed unnecessary.

Labor LawScaffolding LawElevation DifferentialGravity RiskConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryMakeshift DeviceCertified QuestionsNew York Court of AppealsStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Heitman Funds/191 Colonie LLC

A roofer, referred to as the plaintiff, was injured while working on a shopping center roof for the defendants. The accident occurred when a roll carrier, used to dispense roofing material, shifted on a slippery roof, causing a heavy membrane roll to drop and its T-handle to strike the plaintiff's head. The plaintiff initiated a personal injury action, asserting claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and partially granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and a portion of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding a physically significant elevation differential due to the weight of the falling object, but affirmed the existence of triable issues of fact regarding proximate causation. The court also affirmed the rulings on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, upholding the denial of summary judgment for slipping hazards and dismissing the claim related to protective headgear. The final order modified the Supreme Court's decision by denying the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirmed the remainder.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Elevation-Related HazardSummary JudgmentRoofing AccidentSafety DevicesProximate CauseIndustrial Code ViolationSlipping Hazard
References
17
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04322 [240 AD3d 1230]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2025

Skrzynski v. Akebono Brake Corp.

Joseph A. Skrzynski sued Akebono Brake Corporation and Ford Motor Company for personal injuries, specifically mesothelioma, resulting from asbestos exposure from friction products while working at an automobile dealership. The jury found Ford Motor Company liable for failing to warn about the asbestos hazards. On appeal, Ford challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both general and specific causation. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial evidence was legally sufficient to establish both that chrysotile asbestos from automotive brakes can cause peritoneal mesothelioma (general causation) and that plaintiff's exposure levels were sufficient to cause his illness (specific causation). A dissenting justice argued that plaintiff's experts offered insufficient evidence for both general and specific causation, particularly regarding the specific type of asbestos and the quantification of plaintiff's exposure.

Products LiabilityAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaFailure to WarnCausationGeneral CausationSpecific CausationAppellate ReviewJury VerdictExpert Testimony
References
16
Case No. ADJ10788598
Regular
Jul 19, 2019

Shanai King vs. Food 4 Less

This case involves a claimant alleging a psychiatric injury due to workplace stress. The administrative law judge (WCJ) denied the claim, finding the applicant's testimony not credible and the medical evaluations insufficient. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the case for further proceedings. This decision stems from deficiencies in the medical evaluator's analysis of causation, conflating injury causation with permanent disability causation, and the need to develop the medical record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderPsyche InjuryQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial CausationPredominant CauseGood Faith Personnel ActionSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion
References
7
Case No. ADJ1411734 (MON 0361062) MF ADJ130407 (MON 0361061) ADJ4416246 (MON 0361065) ADJ1320492 (MON 0361064) ADJ3297635 (MON 0361063) ADJ7166968 ADJ8574761 ADJ9019769 ADJ9045920
Regular
Jul 28, 2017

MARTHA IBRAHIM vs. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, legally uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the defendant's contention that the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) did not properly address causation and apportionment of the applicant's permanent disability. The Board found that the AME reports lacked substantial evidence regarding causation and apportionment across the applicant's multiple claimed injuries. Consequently, the Board rescinded the previous award and returned the matter for further proceedings to develop the record in compliance with relevant Labor Code sections and case law. The goal is to ensure proper determination of disability causation and apportionment among the various industrial injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and AwardAgreed Medical ExaminerApportionmentCausationPermanent DisabilityLabor Code section 4663Benson v. The Permanente Medical GroupInextricably Intertwined
References
7
Case No. ADJ11026657
Regular
Feb 27, 2020

Monnie Wright vs. California Public Employees' Retirement System, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the finding that collateral estoppel prevents them from determining industrial causation for applicant Monnie Wright's injury under Government Code section 21166. A prior jury found Wright's injury arose out of employment but not in the course of employment. The WCAB has jurisdiction to determine industrial causation for CalPERS disability claims, applying procedural rules and factual findings. However, collateral estoppel, being a hybrid substantive/procedural issue, means the prior jury's determination on "arising out of" but not "in the course of" employment precludes the WCAB from making a new finding of industrial causation (AOE/COE).

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEMLegally UninsuredSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDClaims AdministratorOPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONGovernment Code section 21166collateral estoppelindustrial causationarising out of and in the course of employment
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 951 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