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
Jul 09, 1980

Mylroie v. GAF Corp.

Plaintiff, a former chemical technician and production chemist for GAF Corporation, developed urinary tract problems and was eventually terminated due to chemical exposure. She subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits and initiated a lawsuit against GAF, alleging fraud, intentional tort, and negligence, seeking damages for future bladder cancer. The Supreme Court at Special Term denied GAF's motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the court determined that the plaintiff's injury constituted an occupational disease under the Workers' Compensation Law, thus precluding a common-law personal injury action. Furthermore, the court found the complaint lacked sufficient allegations of intentional harm by the employer to bypass the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order and granted GAF's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Occupational DiseaseBladder CancerChemical ExposureWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityIntentional TortFraudNegligenceMotion to DismissPersonal Injury ActionAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Webb v. GAF Corp.

This Memorandum-Decision and Order addresses cross-motions for post-trial relief in a class action concerning retiree medical benefits involving two plaintiff classes, the IAM and Chemical Workers, against GAF Corporation. Senior District Judge Munson denies motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial from both the Chemical Workers class and GAF, upholding the jury's special verdict regarding the vesting of benefits. The court grants the IAM class's motion for a permanent injunction, preventing GAF from increasing medical premiums for its members, and refers the matter to a magistrate judge for damage calculation. Additionally, the non-classwide claims of the individual IAM plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice.

Retiree Medical BenefitsClass ActionPost-Trial MotionsCollective Bargaining AgreementERISATaft-Hartley ActVesting of BenefitsHealth Insurance PremiumsPermanent InjunctionDamages Referral
References
67
Case No. ADJ7279904
Regular
Jan 26, 2017

JORGE URIBE vs. DS WATERS OF AMERICA, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued the $69\%$ permanent disability finding for psychiatric injury lacked substantial evidence because the treating physician's GAF score correction was unexplained. The Board found the physician adequately explained the correction by detailing how the proper application of GAF criteria resulted in a revised score. Furthermore, the defendant failed to pursue discovery or object to the revised report, which was admitted into evidence. Therefore, the WCJ's finding on psychiatric permanent disability was upheld.

GAF scorepermanent disabilitypsychiatric injurylumbar spinecervical spinesubstantial evidencePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJprimary treating physician
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 1986

Tangredi v. GAF Construction Corp.

The decedent's widow filed a claim for death benefits, alleging her husband, a construction firm superintendent, suffered a fatal heart attack due to heavy work. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge disallowed the claim, citing no evidence of strenuous work and a pre-existing condition. The Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded and restored the case for further development. A different Administrative Law Judge then found the infarction was caused by undue exertion. However, the Board ultimately reversed, concluding that based on lay and medical testimony, the decedent's myocardial infarction was not work-related and did not arise out of employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Death benefitsFatal heart attackMyocardial infarctionUndue exertionWorkers’ Compensation BoardPre-existing conditionSupervisory dutiesMedical evidenceSubstantial evidenceCausation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 1979

Claim of Nannery v. GAF Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant with a permanent partial disability following a back injury in 1968. The claimant, who later became the sole owner of a bar and restaurant, had his reduced earnings award after June 14, 1976, challenged by the Board's finding that his business income was "profits and not wages." The court determined that the Board's decision lacked substantial evidence, as the claimant's active participation in the business, such as ordering supplies and bartending, indicated that at least a portion of his income constituted actual earnings. The court ruled that completely disregarding such evidence in determining actual earnings was incorrect, even if the income was a mix of wages and profits. Therefore, the decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Permanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsBusiness IncomeWages vs. ProfitsActual EarningsSubstantial EvidenceRemittalWorkers' Compensation LawAppealBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. ADJ4630593 (SBR 0315128)
Regular
Jan 25, 2012

GEORGE MONTAGUE vs. GAF LEATHERBACK, ZURICH PRIMARY

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal, which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied. The defendant sought to overturn an order requiring production of specific checks and TD/PD payment information. The Board affirmed the order, finding production of cancelled checks necessary to verify payments and clarify discrepancies. Further, the Board determined that current documentation was insufficient to assess interest payments, and the applicant must have the opportunity to review and comment on the provided data. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDirecting Development of RecordTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent Disability IndemnityInterest CalculationsThird-party administratorsGallagher BassettCrawford and CompanySupplemental Findings and Award
References
0
Case No. ADJ1108001
Regular
Dec 13, 2013

ALMA HILL vs. BMCA INSULATION PRODUCTS/GAF BUILDING MATERIALS, AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case concerns a clerical error in the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's November 21, 2013 Opinion and Order. The original order incorrectly listed the District Office as Santa Barbara when it should have been San Bernardino. The Board has issued an order to correct this error, noting that such corrections can be made at any time without further proceedings. The reconsideration proceedings remain pending.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorPetition for ReconsiderationDistrict OfficeSan BernardinoSanta BarbaraOpinion and OrderSupplemental ProceedingsBMCA Insulation ProductsGAF Building Materials
References
1
Case No. ADJ1108001 (LAO 0750981)
Regular
Feb 27, 2014

ALMA HILL vs. BMCA INSULATION PRODUCTS aka GAF BUILDING MATERIALS; AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE CO. administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address the timeliness of the applicant's Petition to Reopen for New and Further Disability. While the WCAB found the petition to be timely filed, they affirmed the original decision that the applicant failed to demonstrate new and further disability. The Board relied on Agreed Medical Examiners who found no worsening of the applicant's orthopedic or internal medicine conditions post-settlement. Despite some conflicting opinions regarding fibromyalgia and psychological claims, the WCAB concluded the evidence did not support a finding of new and further disability.

Petition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityTimelinessIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryFibromyalgiaLupusAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorCase File Destruction
References
9
Case No. ADJ8530656, ADJ8553993
Regular
May 03, 2019

Feliciano Hernandez vs. Fresh Express, Inc., Federal Insurance Company, Sedgwick Claims Management Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, amending the applicant's permanent disability rating. The Board disagreed with the initial finding of 67% permanent disability, determining that the psychiatric impairment rating should be increased based on the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion. This adjustment, utilizing an analogical rating method and considering the applicant's GAF score of 50, increased the total permanent disability to 73% and will include a life pension. The Board upheld the rejection of the vocational expert's total disability finding due to improper consideration of the applicant's age.

Agreed Medical ExaminerAlmaraz/GuzmanGAF scorepermanent disability ratingvocational expertsubstantial medical evidencerebuttal of scheduled ratingindustrial injuryspecific injurycumulative trauma injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duffy v. Liberty Machine Co.

James Duffy was injured while operating machinery for his employer, Tarkett, Inc., and received workers' compensation benefits. Subsequently, plaintiffs initiated two separate lawsuits: a Federal action against Liberty Machine Company, Inc. and a New York state action against Liberty, Ruberoid Company, GAF Corporation, and Tarkett, Inc. Tarkett, Inc. moved to dismiss the state court complaint against it, asserting the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court granted a conditional dismissal, but the Appellate Division modified this decision. The appellate court found that the action against Tarkett, Inc. was unequivocally barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, thereby granting an unconditional dismissal.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityProduct LiabilityStatute of Limitations WaiverComplaint DismissalAppellate ReviewCorporate MergerThird-Party TortfeasorNew York LawEmployer Immunity
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 11 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