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
Jun 11, 1996

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The case involves an appeal from Workers' Compensation Board decisions concerning a claimant's condition caused by prior work exposure. In 1988, while working for Onondaga County Department of Social Services, the claimant was exposed to formaldehyde gas from new desks, leading to chronic respiratory symptoms and formaldehyde poisoning. In 1990, she was diagnosed with multiple myeloma and sought to reopen her workers' compensation case, asserting a causal link. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board found a causal relationship between the formaldehyde exposure and multiple myeloma. The self-insured employer appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, but the Board's decision, supported by expert medical testimony, was affirmed.

Formaldehyde ExposureMultiple MyelomaCausal RelationshipWorkers' Compensation BenefitsOccupational DiseaseToxic ExposureCancer CausationMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate ReviewBoard Discretion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Claimant Morrell, employed by Onondaga County Department of Social Services, developed respiratory issues and multiple myeloma from formaldehyde exposure, leading to a workers' compensation award. She subsequently sought employer payment for an air purifier, organic food, and vitamin supplements to address consequential upper airway irritation and sinusitis. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed an award for these items, based on medical opinion, prompting the employer's appeal. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found substantial evidence for the causal link between formaldehyde exposure and claimant's current ailments. It ruled that the requested items fell under "other attendance or treatment" in Workers’ Compensation Law § 13 (a), but limited the employer's organic food liability to the cost exceeding conventional food, reversing and remitting the Board's decision for this recalculation.

Workers' CompensationFormaldehyde ExposureRespiratory IllnessSinusitisMedical BenefitsOrganic FoodAir PurifierVitamin SupplementsCausationEmployer Liability
References
12
Case No. Appeal Nos. 5104, 5105, 5106, 5107, 5108, 5109, 5110, 5111
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2001

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

In this workers' compensation action, the plaintiff, Wanda Crossno, a 51-year-old with a ninth-grade education, claimed an occupational lung disease from formaldehyde exposure at Publix Shirt Factory. The trial court awarded her 60 percent permanent partial disability benefits, a decision the defendant appealed. The defendant contended the lung disease was not work-related and pre-existed employment, also arguing the disability award was excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding that the plaintiff's lung condition was caused or aggravated by her employment based on treating physicians' testimony, and that the awarded disability benefits were supported by evidence of her age, education, and limited job skills.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLung DiseaseFormaldehyde ExposureAsthmatic BronchitisChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseCausationAggravation of Pre-existing ConditionMedical Expert Testimony
References
7
Case No. 2017-08-0815
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2018

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Ms. Nicole Steen, an employee of IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., filed a Request for Expedited Hearing claiming exposure to formaldehyde, methanol, and mold at work on January 20, 2017, causing nausea, stomach pains, and shortness of breath. She sought medical and temporary disability benefits, but IDEXX denied the claim. The Court found that Ms. Steen failed to provide medical proof establishing a work-related injury, specifically that her employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102 (14)(B). Consequently, the Court denied her claim for medical and temporary disability benefits, setting the matter for a Scheduling Hearing.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsCausationBurden of ProofWork Injury DenialFormaldehyde ExposureMethanol ExposureMold Exposure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Claimant (Rakowski) filed multiple workers' compensation claims over the years, alleging various injuries due to poor workplace air quality and formaldehyde exposure. Her initial 1990 claim for symptoms like dizziness and headaches was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board, a decision affirmed on appeal. Subsequent claims in 1998, alleging fibromyalgia and neurological damage, were also disallowed as duplicative. In 2004, she filed another application for lung nodules and post-traumatic stress. The Board again denied these claims, citing previous litigation, speculative connections due to elapsed time, and lack of evidence for a compensable accident. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion and supporting the Board's findings that the claims were fully litigated, duplicative, or speculative without new evidence.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewOccupational DiseaseFormaldehyde ExposureWorkplace EnvironmentPrior LitigationClaim DenialMedical CausationDuplicative ClaimsStatute of Limitations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 1982

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

NIOSH, established by Congress to research occupational safety and health under OSHA, is studying the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde exposure in garment workers. As the insurer of these workers, Amalgamated Life Insurance Company holds relevant death records. NIOSH subpoenaed these records, but Amalgamated refused, arguing NIOSH lacked the power to subpoena third-party recordkeepers and that the records were protected by privacy and privilege. The court ruled that NIOSH's subpoena power extends beyond employers and employees under Section 669(b) of OSHA, encompassing all powers in Section 657. The court also found no protectable privacy right, as the employees were deceased and the right to privacy terminates upon death, and that the public interest in NIOSH's study outweighed any privacy claims. Furthermore, the court determined that federal law, not state law, governed privilege in this federal question case, and no federal privilege for death certificates exists. Therefore, the court granted NIOSH's motion to compel Amalgamated to comply with the subpoena.

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)Subpoena EnforcementThird-Party RecordkeepersCarcinogenicity StudyFormaldehyde ExposureGarment WorkersRight to Privacy (Deceased)Federal Question JurisdictionDeath Certificates
References
17
Case No. LBO 0377371
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

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
Showing 1-10 of 879 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