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
Nov 04, 1999

Claim of Decker v. Kings Park Industries, Inc.

The claimant, an operating engineer, sought workers' compensation benefits for a 27.9% binaural hearing loss allegedly sustained during his employment with Kings Park Industries. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found the claimant had removed himself from harmful noise exposure. However, in an amended decision, the Board ruled there was insufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between the claimant's hearing loss and his employment, subsequently denying his claim for benefits. Both the carrier and the claimant appealed this amended decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's findings regarding both the claimant's removal from noise exposure and the lack of causal relationship evidence, thereby upholding the denial of benefits.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' Compensation Law § 49-bbCausal RelationshipMedical Evidence RequirementsHarmful Noise ExposureWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionsAppellate ReviewDenial of BenefitsPrima Facie Medical EvidencePhysician Testimony Preclusion
References
7
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. 531864
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2021

Matter of Gandurski v. Abatech Indus., Inc.

In this workers' compensation appeal, claimant Wieslaw Gandurski sought benefits for binaural hearing loss, alleging it was an occupational disease from prolonged noise exposure as an asbestos handler for Abatech Industries, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) disallowed the claim, finding insufficient medical evidence to establish a causal link, noting inconsistencies in claimant's medical history and his continued noise exposure in subsequent employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the WCB's decision, deferring to the Board's factual determinations and credibility assessments, which were deemed supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that there was inadequate medical proof to connect claimant's hearing loss to his work with the employer of record. Claimant's remaining contentions were found to be without merit.

Occupational DiseaseBinaural Hearing LossAsbestos HandlerWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewUnion Organizer
References
11
Case No. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim
References
17
Case No. 11-04-00172-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2006

Tomasa Rivera, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Raul Rivera, Isaiah Rivera Jolene Rivera Rangel Raul Rivera, Jr. And Erica J. Rivera v. Meister Industries, Inc. and Longhorn Custom Coating, Inc.

Appellants, the Riveras, sued appellees Meister Industries, Inc. and Longhorn Custom Coating, Inc. for gross negligence, alleging that Raul Rivera contracted silicosis and died due to exposure to dangerous levels of silica dust while working as a sandblaster. The jury found in favor of the Riveras, awarding $300,000 in exemplary damages. However, the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding no evidence of gross negligence. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The court concluded there was no legally sufficient evidence that Meister had an actual, subjective awareness of the extreme risk posed by silica dust exposure, a necessary element for gross negligence under Texas law, despite evidence of OSHA regulations and expert testimony on the hazards of silica.

SilicosisGross NegligenceEmployer LiabilitySilica Dust ExposureJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictOccupational DiseaseSandblastingWorkplace SafetyTexas Appeals CourtCausation
References
10
Case No. W2014-00032-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2014

Ricardo Torres v. Precision Industries, P.I., d/b/a Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick and Vicki Hedrick

Ricardo Torres, an undocumented worker, appealed the Hardeman County Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in his retaliatory discharge claim against Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick, and Vicki Hedrick. Torres alleged he was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim for a back injury sustained on the job. The trial court had ruled that an unauthorized alien lacked standing to bring such a claim as they were incapable of legal employment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that undocumented employees do have standing to pursue retaliatory discharge claims in Tennessee, as the Workers' Compensation Act broadly defines 'employee' to include those lawfully or unlawfully employed. The court reasoned that retaliatory discharge actions protect employees' rights to file workers' compensation claims and preventing such claims by unauthorized aliens would create an incentive for employers to hire illegal workers and deny them benefits without consequence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeUndocumented WorkerImmigration StatusSummary Judgment ReversalEmployee StandingEmployment LawTennessee Appellate CourtPublic Policy ExceptionEmployer Retaliation
References
52
Case No. 2016-08-0212, 8325-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2016

Fowler, Landon v. Mueller Industries

Landon Fowler, a 67-year-old employee of Mueller Industries, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits for an alleged exposure injury from a malfunctioning chroming machine. Mueller Industries asserted that Fowler failed to establish causation, provide proper notice, and file his claim within the statute of limitations. The Court found the dispositive issue to be causation and held that Mr. Fowler failed to present sufficient medical evidence linking his conditions, such as breathing problems, shaking, and vertigo, to his alleged exposure at work. The Court noted that current law requires a showing that an injury contributed more than fifty percent to the disablement with a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Consequently, the Court denied his request for medical and temporary benefits.

Expedited HearingCausationMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsExposure InjuryIndustrial AccidentChroming MachineMedical EvidenceEmployer LiabilityStatute of Limitations Defense
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 1987

Claim of Moore v. RPM Industries, Inc.

A claimant, employed by RPM Industries, Inc. in Cayuga County since 1979, developed occupational asthma due to exposure to liquid acetone fumes in a poorly ventilated workroom. Her symptoms worsened over three years, culminating in a severe attack on April 12, 1984, forcing her to leave work. A lung specialist, Dr. David Davin, diagnosed her condition as asthma caused by occupational exposure. Claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits, and though RPM Industries did not contest causation, they argued for partial disability. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found claimant totally disabled, a decision affirmed on appeal. The court found substantial evidence, including medical expert opinions from Dr. Davin and RPM's expert Dr. Ronald Miller, supported the total disability finding, despite some doctors indicating limited capacity, as claimant's condition prevented her from finding suitable employment.

Occupational AsthmaAcetone ExposureTotal DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEmployer AppealMedical Expert TestimonyRespiratory IllnessWorkplace FumesCausal ConnectionDisability Benefits
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emhart Industries, Inc. v. Duracell International Inc.

This breach of contract case involves the sale of the Mallory Components Group by Duracell International Inc. to Emhart Industries, Inc. Several transferred facilities were contaminated with toxic substances (PCBs and TCE), leading to two consolidated lawsuits: Emhart v. Duracell and Dart, and Duracell v. Emhart. The trial was bifurcated into liability and damages phases. The Court ruled that Duracell and Dart are liable to Emhart for clean-up costs of the facilities and equipment, consequential damages arising from the necessary clean-up time, costs incurred in enforcing the contract, and a portion of third-party action costs. Additionally, Duracell was found liable to Emhart for CERCLA response costs. The Court also determined that Emhart's temporary plant shutdown was a reasonable response to perceived legal and health risks, but its subsequent decision to permanently close the plant and abandon equipment, while economically rational for Emhart, was outside the scope of Duracell's indemnity obligation.

Breach of ContractEnvironmental LawToxic SubstancesPCBsTCECorporate SaleIndemnity AgreementCERCLATSCAClean-up Costs
References
41
Case No. 7250/00, 491/00, 6197/00, 11473/99
Regular Panel Decision

Ballard v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

The case involves motions for consolidation and severance of four personal injury actions stemming from asbestos exposure at Eastman Kodak Company. The plaintiffs sought to consolidate the Ballard (7250/00) and Cooros (491/00) cases, and separately, the Duemmel (6197/00) and Keller (11473/99) cases. Defendants CBS Corporation, R.E. Hebert and Company, Inc., and Rochester Industrial Insulation, Inc., opposed consolidation, with the latter also moving for severance. Presiding Judge Raymond E. Cornelius, J., reviewed criteria for consolidation in mass tort asbestos litigation, including common worksite, occupation, exposure time, disease type, and plaintiff status (living/deceased). The court denied the consolidation of Ballard and Cooros, finding undue prejudice due to differing diseases and direct/indirect exposure among deceased and living claimants. Similarly, the court denied the full consolidation of Duemmel and Keller but granted severance for the deceased Pschirrer claimant from the other Duemmel plaintiffs, allowing his claim to be consolidated with the Keller case due to similarities in occupation and indirect exposure.

Asbestos LitigationCase ConsolidationCase SeverancePersonal InjuryMass TortPrejudice ArgumentCPLR 602(a)CPLR 603MesotheliomaAsbestosis
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 5,227 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