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

Cuevas v. Reading & Bates Corp.

Philippine workers and representatives of deceased workers sued U.S. corporations and the drilling rig Ron Tappmeyer for damages from hydrogen sulfide gas exposure and unpaid wages. The incident occurred in 1980 off the coast of Saudi Arabia. The plaintiffs' motion to transfer the case was denied. The court dismissed the case based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, determining that Philippine law, not American law, was applicable due to the strong contacts with the Philippines. The dismissal was conditional on the defendants submitting to jurisdiction in the Philippines or Saudi Arabia and waiving statute of limitations defenses.

International Maritime LawChoice of LawForum Non ConveniensPhilippine LawAmerican LawDrilling Rig AccidentHydrogen Sulfide ExposurePersonal InjuryWrongful DeathWage Claims
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephens v. Delhi Gas Pipeline Corp.

Larry Stephens sued Delhi Gas Pipeline Corporation for retaliatory discharge and defamation after being terminated from his nineteen-year employment. Delhi claimed Stephens was fired for violating a conflict of interest policy, while Stephens contended it was due to his health problems related to hydrogen sulfide exposure and his contemplation of a workers’ compensation claim. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment for Delhi. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment on the defamation claim but reversed and remanded the retaliatory discharge claim, finding sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue on a causal link between his potential workers' compensation claim and his termination.

Retaliatory DischargeDefamationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ClaimConflict of Interest PolicyHydrogen Sulfide ExposureTexas LawEmployment LawQualified PrivilegeActual Malice
References
32
Case No. 13-08-00306-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2009

the Wcm Group, Inc. v. Neil Camponovo, Individually and as Representative of the Estate Joel Allen Camponovo, And Margaret Camponovo, Individually

The WCM Group, Inc. appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss claims brought by Neil and Margaret Camponovo, individually and as representatives of the Estate of Joel Allen Camponovo, deceased. The Camponovos sued WCM for negligence and gross negligence after Joel Camponovo's death from hydrogen sulfide exposure. WCM, an engineering firm, argued the Camponovos failed to file a certificate of merit as required by law. The trial court granted the Camponovos an extension to file the certificate, citing good cause due to an expert's family emergency, and denied WCM's motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in granting the extension and determining that good cause was adequately shown, particularly given the minimal delay and lack of prejudice to WCM. The court lifted the stay on proceedings below.

Certificate of Merit ExtensionProfessional Services LitigationEngineering MalpracticeStatute of Limitations ExceptionGood Cause DeterminationAppellate Discretion ReviewMotion to Dismiss DenialInterlocutory Appeal ProcedureDiscovery Disclosure IssuesExpert Affidavit Requirement
References
9
Case No. Appeal Nos. 5104, 5105, 5106, 5107, 5108, 5109, 5110, 5111
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2001

Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc.

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

Claim of DePascale v. Magazine Distributors, Inc.

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

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

Rudd v. Gulf Cas. Co.

The claimant, Rudd, appealed a "take nothing" judgment in a workmen's compensation case, where he sought disability benefits for an occupational disease caused by inhaling hydrogen sulphide gas while working for Gulf Oil Corporation. The appellate court considered seven points of error, primarily concerning the admissibility of evidence. The court found that testimony from a defense witness about his lack of ill effects from gas exposure and the claimant's termination for payroll fraud was admissible to rebut the claimant's testimony and assess his credibility. Additionally, counsel's statements regarding the claimant's good faith were deemed permissible expressions of opinion within argument. Ultimately, all points of error were overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workmen's CompensationOccupational DiseaseHydrogen SulphideGas InhalationEvidence AdmissibilityWitness CredibilityEmployer LiabilityInsurerTrial Court JudgmentAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. LBO 0377371
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

EDUBIJES TORREZ vs. RED HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, CHUBB SERVICES CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

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
Case No. ADJ11721215
Regular
Mar 20, 2023

GLEN HODGES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns a firefighter's claim for melanoma under Labor Code section 3212.1, which presumes cancer is industrially caused. While the applicant raised the presumption through evidence of carcinogen exposure, the Appeals Board overturned the initial finding of industrial injury due to melanoma. The Board found the presumption was rebutted by expert medical opinion concluding the applicant's melanoma was not reasonably linked to industrial sun exposure, citing significant childhood sun exposure, tanning bed use, family history, and minimal workplace sun exposure to the affected area. The Board therefore granted reconsideration and amended the decision to exclude melanoma as an industrial injury, though actinic keratosis was still found to be industrially caused.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionrebutted presumptionqualified medical evaluatorindustrial injuryactinic keratosismelanomafirefightercarcinogenInternational Agency for Research on Cancer
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1998

Claim of Gardner v. Structure Tone of NY, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits, alleging asbestosis due to asbestos exposure during employment as an elevator operator at a construction site. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant partially disabled by asbestosis, an occupational disease, and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, primarily disputing the claimant's asbestos exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision after finding sufficient evidence of exposure and asbestosis. On further appeal, the employer argued that asbestosis was not inherent to an elevator operator's job, but the appellate court declined to consider this issue as it was not raised in the administrative appeal to the Board. The court also noted the employer abandoned the exposure issue by not raising it on the current appeal, thus affirming the Board's decision.

AsbestosisOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsElevator OperatorAppealAdministrative AppealJudicial ReviewPreservation of IssueWCLJ Decision
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 878 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