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
Feb 12, 1986

Claim of Mack v. County of Rockland

Claimant, a psychiatric social worker, alleged that prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke in her locked hospital unit caused eye irritation and an aggravation of pre-existing asymptomatic non-occupational binocular keratitissicca, constituting an occupational disease. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found an occupational disease. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this finding, determining that there was no distinctive feature of the claimant's employment that could have caused or aggravated the condition. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that no occupational disease claim could be sustained as the disability was not incident to the particular employment.

Occupational DiseaseSecondhand Smoke ExposureEye IrritationPsychiatric Social WorkerAggravation of Pre-existing ConditionWorkers' Compensation LawBoard ReversalAppellate ReviewDistinctive Feature of EmploymentBinocular Keratitissicca
References
1
Case No. 524849
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2018

Matter of Yonkosky v. Town of Hamburg

Claimant, a seasonal laborer for a municipal highway department, developed right shoulder problems in July 2014 and was later diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff. He filed a workers' compensation claim, asserting it was an occupational disease from emptying asphalt-filled wheelbarrows. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed an award of benefits, classifying it as an occupational disease. The employer appealed, arguing it was an accidental injury, making the claim untimely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence to establish a "recognizable link" between the injury and a distinctive feature of his employment to qualify as an occupational disease, and remitted the matter. The dissenting opinion argued that the strenuous nature of the work activity could constitute an occupational disease regardless of its prolonged duration.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation LawRotator Cuff InjuryCausally Related InjuryAccidental InjuryTimeliness of ClaimRepetitive Stress InjuryAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aldrich v. St. Joseph's Hospital

Claimant, a licensed practical nurse, sought workers' compensation benefits for a bone spur in her foot and knee, which she attributed to repetitive walking required by her job since 1990. After an initial controversion, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the case for occupational disease, notice, and causal relationship, awarding benefits. This decision was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending the condition was not a compensable occupational disease under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (15). The court found substantial evidence, including medical testimony, to support the Board's finding of a recognizable link between the claimant's condition and the distinctive feature of her occupation, specifically extensive walking on hard floors. Therefore, the decision finding a compensable occupational disease was affirmed.

Occupational DiseaseBone SpurLicensed Practical NurseRepetitive WalkingCausal RelationshipWorkers' Compensation LawMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewFoot and Knee PainWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vazquez v. Orange County Rehabilitation Center

Plaintiff's ward was allegedly sexually assaulted by defendant Lewis while engaged in piecework at a sheltered workshop operated by Occupations. Defendants Occupations and Lewis asserted workers' compensation coverage as affirmative defenses. The court held that claims occurring before July 22, 1989, when Mental Hygiene Law § 33.09 (c) excluded sheltered workshop participants from workers' compensation, are not subject to the defense. For claims after July 22, 1989, when the law was amended to allow coverage if elected, the issue of workers' compensation coverage is referred to the Workers' Compensation Board. Defendant Orange County Department of Mental Health's motion for summary judgment was granted due to lack of evidence linking them to the incident or supervision of Occupations.

sexual assaultsheltered workshopworkers' compensationsummary judgmentaffirmative defensestatutory constructionjurisdictionMental Hygiene Lawamendmentnegligence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 1997

Claim of Bates v. Marine Midland Bank

The claimant, a bank recovery adjuster, developed a herniated disc as a result of cradling a telephone with his neck while working at a computer terminal. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially determined that this was a causally related occupational disease and awarded benefits. The employer and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier appealed this decision. The court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant's condition was caused by the specific configuration of his work space and equipment use, rather than a distinctive or unique feature of his occupation. Consequently, the claimant failed to establish that he suffered from an occupational disease, and the case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseHerniated DiscBank Recovery AdjusterWorkplace ErgonomicsCausationAppealWorkers' Compensation BoardSubstantial EvidenceRepetitive Strain Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Howe

Petitioners Allen and Spiegel, State employees, challenged their termination by respondents after cumulative one-year absences due to occupational injuries, arguing Civil Service Law § 71 required a continuous one-year absence. Petitioner Allen also alleged equal protection and due process violations, claiming disparate treatment compared to employees with non-occupational injuries under Civil Service Law § 73. The Court upheld the respondents' interpretation of Civil Service Law § 71 as rational and in furtherance of the State's interest in an efficient civil service. It rejected the equal protection and due process claims, finding the distinction between occupational and ordinary injuries to be rational and not in violation of constitutional guarantees. The Appellate Division's orders were affirmed.

Civil Service LawOccupational InjuryDisability LeaveEmployee TerminationEqual ProtectionDue ProcessAdministrative InterpretationStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsState Employees
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2013

Claim of Storm v. Phillips Lighting Co.

The claimant, a machine operator, sustained a work-related right shoulder injury in 2002, leading to surgery in 2010 for a rotator cuff tear. An occupational physician, Michael Lax, diagnosed an occupational disease in November 2011, attributing it to repetitive arm motion. Subsequently, the claimant applied for workers\' compensation benefits in 2012. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially deemed the claim time-barred and related to the 2002 accident, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, establishing the claim. On appeal, the Board\'s determination was affirmed, with the court finding substantial evidence that the claim was timely filed due to the claimant\'s knowledge date in November 2011, and that the claimant suffered from a distinct occupational disease aggravated by her employment duties.

Workers\' CompensationOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Motion InjuryShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearTimeliness of ClaimDate of DisablementAggravationWorkers\' Compensation Board AppealAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Phelan v. Bethpage State Park, New York State Department of Parks & Recreation

Claimant, a groundskeeper for over 35 years at a state park, developed a diabetic ulceration with osteomyelitis in his right foot, necessitating surgery and partial amputation. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, attributing his condition to cold exposure from his outdoor work. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing the condition stemmed from diabetes, not his employment. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a causally related occupational disease and awarded benefits. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, disallowing the claim due to a lack of causally related occupational disease. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the claimant's condition was alleged to result from an environmental condition rather than a distinctive feature of his occupation, and that the submitted medical evidence of a causal relationship was not compelling.

Occupational DiseaseCausal RelationshipDiabetic UlcerationOsteomyelitisCold ExposureGrounds KeepingWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers’ Compensation Board Reversal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mack v. County of Rockland

The Workers' Compensation Board initially reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision in favor of the claimant, a psychiatric social worker, who suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing eye disorder from cigarette smoke exposure at work. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant's condition was not an "occupational disease" under Workers' Compensation Law section 3 (2) as it existed at the time. The court emphasized that an occupational disease must arise from the inherent nature of the occupation itself, not merely from specific environmental conditions of the workplace. Since the injury was attributed to the workplace environment and not a distinctive feature of a psychiatric social worker's job, the Board had a valid legal basis to deny the claim. The court noted this claim predated a 1984 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law section 2 (15) and did not address the amendment's impact.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationWorkplace EnvironmentPre-existing ConditionCausationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEye DisorderCigarette SmokeVentilation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Konieczny v. Butterflake Shop

Claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 8, 1977, which ruled that he did not suffer from an occupational disease. The claimant, employed as a baker, was diagnosed with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthmatic bronchitis, and emphysema, following a history of heavy smoking. The record contained conflicting medical evidence regarding the link between his employment and his condition. The court affirmed the Board's determination, holding that when medical proof is contradictory, the question of occupational disease is one of fact for the Board, and their finding was supported by substantial evidence, particularly Dr. Riley's testimony.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseAsthmatic BronchitisEmphysemaConflicting Medical EvidenceQuestion of FactSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical Testimony
References
2
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