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. ADJ1168599 (WCK 0050522)
Regular
Mar 05, 2009

STANLEY ANGEL (Deceased) WANDA ANGEL (Widow) vs. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, CRAWFORD & COMPANY, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior finding that Stanley Angel's death from multiple myeloma was industrially caused by chemical exposure at Dow Chemical Company. The Board found insufficient evidence of sufficient exposure levels and duration to establish industrial causation. Medical opinions were split, but the Board found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for a causal connection. Consequently, the applicant received no further benefits.

Multiple MyelomaToxic Chemical ExposureIndustrial CausationQualified Medical EvaluatorLatency PeriodOrganic SolventsCumulative TraumaIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration
References
0
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whitney v. Quaker Chemical Corp.

The Supreme Court erred by not granting Quaker Chemical Corporation's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Plaintiff Gaylord Whitney sought damages for personal injuries due to toxic substance exposure from the defendant's products. The plaintiff experienced difficulty breathing and was diagnosed with bronchitis and chemical exposure between August and November 1989, directly linked to workplace fumes. An emergency room doctor confirmed the chemical exposure, leading Whitney to file an Occupational Injury and Illness Report and a workers’ compensation claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board later determined that an injury occurred on August 17, 1989, due to workplace exposure. According to CPLR 214-c (2), a three-year statute of limitations applies from the date of injury discovery. Since Whitney was aware of his injury by late 1989, and the action was not commenced until October 29, 1993, the court found the action to be untimely. Justices Fallon and Callahan dissented from the majority decision.

Time-barredStatute of LimitationsToxic ExposurePersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationDiscovery RuleOccupational InjuryChemical ExposureBronchitisSummary Judgment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glod v. Ashland Chemical Co.

James Glod, and derivatively Lisa Glod, sued Eastman Chemical Products, Inc. and other defendants for injuries, specifically asthma, allegedly caused by exposure to toxic chemicals at Glod's workplace between 1982 and 1985. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on failure to state a cause of action and Statute of Limitations. The court granted dismissal of the seventh cause of action (unspecified statutory violations) and the first and second causes of action (strict liability and negligence) under CPLR 214-c, finding them time-barred. All other causes of action survived dismissal, and the plaintiffs' cross-motions to amend the complaint and declare CPLR 214-c unconstitutional were denied.

Toxic tortStatute of limitationsCPLR 214-cChemical exposureAsthmaPersonal injuryStrict liabilityNegligenceBreach of contractBreach of warranty
References
22
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. 09-06-298 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2006

in Re Exxon Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Individually F/K/A Mobil Oil Corporation and A/K/A Mobil Chemical Company, a Division of ExxonMobile Oil Corporation, Mobil Chemical Company, Inc., Individually and F/K/A Mobil Chemical Corporation

This mandamus proceeding before the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses whether a trial court can compel a party to present a deponent to detail efforts taken to search for documents. Exxon, defendants in underlying benzene exposure suits by Wilkinson, Hebert, and Stubbs, challenged a trial court's order requiring a deposition regarding their discovery compliance. The Court of Appeals found the order constituted an improper 'fishing expedition' that would invade attorney-client and work product privileges, as it sought to inquire into the mental processes of counsel. The court concluded the trial court abused its discretion and conditionally granted mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to vacate its prior discovery order.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeWork Product PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeFishing ExpeditionTexas Civil ProcedureOverbroad DiscoveryDepositionCorporate RepresentativeBenzene Exposure
References
6
Case No. ADJ3229251 (GRO 0032007) ADJ4697200 (GRO 0032008)
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

JOYCE ROARK vs. CORDOVA CHEMICAL/AEROJET, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, increasing the death benefit to $125,000 and the attorney fee to $18,750, based on a June 2004 date of injury. The Board denied the defendant's petition, upholding the finding that the deceased worker's death from cancer was industrially caused based on Dr. O'Neill's medical opinion. While the majority found Dr. O'Neill's revised opinion, considering chromosomal damage and a specific medical article linking rare tumors to similar chemical exposures, constituted substantial evidence, one commissioner dissented, arguing the medical evidence was insufficient for a finding of industrial causation. The dissenting commissioner believed further medical evaluation was necessary, preferring an IME to resolve the causation issue.

David RoarkJoyce RoarkCordova Chemical/AerojetPacific Employers InsuranceESISADJ3229251ADJ4697200Joint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial Injury
References
8
Case No. 05-92-00087-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1993

Mosley, James R. and Janice Mosley v. Employers Casualty Company

James R. Mosley, an industrial painter for Algas Industries, developed an occupational toxic disease due to chemical exposure. After receiving a workers' compensation award, Employers Casualty Company sought to set it aside. James and his wife, Janice Mosley, cross-filed against Algas, with Janice claiming intentional impairment of consortium. The trial court granted an instructed verdict in favor of the appellees. On appeal, the Mosleys challenged the instructed verdict, arguing sufficient evidence for notice of occupational disease and Algas's intentional acts regarding ventilation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding insufficient evidence to raise fact issues and noting a procedural failure regarding Janice Mosley's testimony.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationInstructed VerdictNotice RequirementIntentional TortImpairment of ConsortiumSufficiency of EvidenceStandard of ReviewHearsay ObjectionAppellate Procedure
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lopez v. Superflex, Ltd.

The claimant, suffering from acute bilateral kidney failure, filed a workers' compensation claim alleging causation by exposure to toxic chemicals at his workplace while painting and packing industrial hoses. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially denied the claim, asserting insufficient evidence of chemical exposure and lack of causal link. However, the appellate court found that the Board's decision was based on incorrect facts and lacked substantial evidence, highlighting that material safety data sheets confirmed kidney damage as a potential hazard of the chemicals used. Furthermore, the court noted that medical expert testimony supported causation, and an OSHA report, mischaracterized by the Board, did not disprove harmful exposure. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Board’s decisions and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the link between workplace conditions and the claimant's kidney failure.

Occupational diseaseKidney failureToxic chemical exposureWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewCausationMedical expert testimonyOSHA reportRemittedSubstantial evidence
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 5,419 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