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. 15 Civ. 7543 (NSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. sued Defendant CKH Industries, Inc. for non-payment of marketing fees. CKH counter-claimed, alleging violations of franchise laws, breach of agreements, unfair business practices, and fraud. Safe Step moved to dismiss CKH’s counter-claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It determined that the relationship between the parties could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule and various state laws, allowing certain counter-claims to proceed. However, claims under New York and Rhode Island's "Little FTC" Acts, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition were dismissed. The court also held that Tennessee law governs the contract disputes, while state franchise laws apply where Defendant's franchises are located. Additionally, the court found that oral modifications and part performance could sustain certain contract claims despite written-only modification clauses.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Valenti v. Penn Plax Plastics

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

Hot v. Carmel Central School District

Vahidin Hot, an 18-year-old student, died after threatening his girlfriend and another student, and then himself. His parents, Murat and Sevdija Hot, filed claims against the Carmel Central School District and the County of Putnam under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging that inadequate training of personnel caused their son's death. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on all federal claims, concluding that the circumstances leading to Hot's death were highly anomalous and unforeseeable, thus precluding a finding of "deliberate indifference" for failure to train. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Failure to TrainSection 1983 ClaimsDeliberate IndifferenceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Rights ViolationWrongful DeathSchool District LiabilityCounty LiabilityPolice MisconductForeseeability
References
17
Case No. CV-23-0192
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2024

Matter of Bonitto v. Vivid Mech. LLC

The claimant, a mechanic pipefitter, sustained a collapsed lung after inhaling fumes and hot steam while repairing an HVAC system at work in July 2021. He subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which the employer and carrier controverted, arguing a lack of causal relationship due to his smoking history and location of lung collapse. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, establishing the claim based on opinions from two treating physicians who found a causal relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of a causally-related injury and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to preclude certain medical reports.

PneumothoraxCollapsed LungHVAC InjuryFume InhalationCausally-Related InjuryWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionMedical ReportsCross-ExaminationDeposition
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1998

Claim of Washington v. New York City Department of Transportation

Claimant, an employee of the New York City Department of Transportation, injured his back in a work-related automobile accident. He purchased a self-massage table and had his bathroom remodeled for a whirlpool tub, both medically recommended but without prior employer authorization. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded reimbursement for the massage table but denied the whirlpool tub installation. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified the decision, awarding an additional $200 for a detachable whirlpool unit. The claimant appealed this modification, and the decision was affirmed, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's decision regarding the reasonableness of costs for the whirlpool tub, despite a physician's letter noting the purchased tub's appropriateness.

Workers' CompensationMedical ReimbursementSelf-insured EmployerAutomobile AccidentBack InjuryPhysical RehabilitationMedical DevicesWhirlpool TubMassage TableReasonableness of Costs
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2011

Claim of Gillard v. Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.

The employer and its third-party administrator appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying their claim for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for death benefits paid to a claimant. The claimant's husband, who had a workers' compensation claim established for permanent partial disability due to asbestos-related pleural disease, later died from lung cancer and congestive heart failure. The employer sought reimbursement, arguing a link between asbestosis and lung cancer, but the Board denied this, stating the original claim was not established for asbestosis and that the request to reopen was untimely. The Board further found no proof connecting asbestosis to the lung cancer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the reopening request was untimely and that there was no causal link shown between asbestosis and the lung cancer.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursementAsbestosisLung CancerCausal RelationshipTimelinessDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrelli v. Atlantic Construction

The claimant, who previously suffered a hand injury and received a lump-sum settlement, filed a second workers' compensation claim in 2000 for asbestos-related lung disease. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded lost wages, but the Workers’ Compensation Board eliminated this award, ruling no causal relationship between the lung disease and loss of earnings, as the claimant retired due to other ailments. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the claimant's failure to seek suitable work within medical limitations despite doctors' warnings about asbestos exposure, and the lack of evidence that the lung disease affected his earning capacity.

Asbestos ExposurePleural DiseaseCausal RelationshipLoss of EarningsPermanent Partial DisabilityDisability RetirementMedical LimitationsEarning CapacityAppellate ReviewVocational Rehabilitation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Garrio v. Donovan

A porter-cleaner, disabled since 1989 due to lung cancer, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision which concluded his disabling lung condition was not work-related. Claimant’s treating physician opined that his conditions, including asbestosis, chronic bronchitis, and COPD, were causally related to occupational exposure to asbestos, coal dust, and soot. However, the employer’s expert and an impartial specialist concluded that the lung cancer and emphysema were caused by heavy cigarette smoking. The Board's decision, supported by the impartial specialist's and carrier's expert's opinions, was affirmed, finding sufficient medical evidence to resolve the conflict in opinions regarding causality.

Lung CancerAsbestosisChronic BronchitisCOPDCausationMedical Opinion ConflictExpert TestimonyWorkers' Compensation AppealOccupational ExposureCigarette Smoking
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Surianello v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The claimant, an electrical construction mechanic, developed lung disease after working at the World Trade Center (WTC) site. He filed workers' compensation claims, and was eventually found permanently totally disabled. The self-insured employer sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, arguing a preexisting lung condition contributed to the disability. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied reimbursement, concluding the disability was solely caused by WTC site exposure. However, the appellate court reversed, citing medical evidence from pulmonologists Carl Friedman and Neil Schacter, which indicated the claimant's overall disability was materially and substantially greater due to a preexisting restrictive lung disease, not just WTC exposure. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

WTC Site ExposureOccupational Lung DiseaseSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting Medical ConditionPermanent Total DisabilityCausationMedical Expert OpinionAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04609
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2022

Dyer v. Amchem Prods. Inc.

In this asbestos exposure litigation, defendant American Biltrite, Inc. (ABI) sought summary judgment on the issue of causation. The plaintiff's decedent, Kenneth C. Dyer, died from lung cancer and claimed exposure to asbestos from ABI's vinyl floor tiles. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order denying ABI's motion for summary judgment. The court found that ABI successfully made a prima facie case that the decedent was not exposed to sufficient quantities of respirable asbestos from its product to cause his lung cancer. The plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding specific causation, as the expert's conclusions lacked a reliable correlation between exposure levels and the causation of lung cancer, thereby failing to satisfy the standards set by Parker and Nemeth.

Asbestos exposureLung cancerSummary judgmentCausationToxic tortExpert testimonySimulation studiesRespirable asbestosVinyl floor tilesOccupational exposure
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 168 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