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
Mar 23, 2000

Ramnarine v. Memorial Center for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jagdeo Ramnarine, an employee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, suffered a laceration at the Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases. He subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit. The defendant, Memorial Center, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as both the Center and the Hospital operate as a single integrated employer despite their separate legal entities. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court found substantial evidence supporting the integrated employer argument, thereby limiting the plaintiff's remedy to workers' compensation benefits and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntegrated Employer DoctrineSummary Judgment ReversalNegligence ClaimCross Claims DismissedCorporate Alter EgoCommon ControlBronx CountyAppellate DivisionLabor Law
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02445 [237 AD3d 1500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Wendy Cooper, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cooper was terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was later declared null and void in an unrelated case. The arbitrator, however, upheld Cooper's termination based on the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, reinstating Cooper, finding it irrational and against public policy. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirming the arbitration award. It held that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the award, as petitioners failed to prove it violated a strong public policy or was irrational under CPLR 7511 (b), reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards.

Arbitration AwardVacaturPublic PolicyIrrationalityCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitation
References
9
Case No. ADJ8518473
Regular
Apr 15, 2015

Gregory Oyler vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA, NORTHERN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

Applicant sought workers' compensation for kidney cancer, invoking a presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 due to alleged exposure to benzene as a deputy sheriff. The agreed medical evaluator opined that the cancer's established latency period (11-30+ years) and the applicant's history of tobacco use and hypertension rebutted this presumption. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the presumption was rebutted, as the expert's opinion on latency and pre-existing risk factors constituted substantial evidence. Therefore, the applicant's claim for kidney cancer was denied compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGregory OylerCounty of SonomaNorthern Claims ManagementADJ8518473Deputy SheriffKidney CancerLabor Code section 3212.1Peace OfficerBenzene
References
0
Case No. Index No. 161136/17 Appeal No. 15141 Case No. 2021-02236
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Quiroz v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jose Alfonso Perez Quiroz, a construction worker, sustained injuries after falling from an unstable scaffold at a site managed by Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases and general contractor Turner Construction Company. He initiated legal action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Quiroz's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the unsecured scaffold to be a proximate cause of his fall. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as academic.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment AppealPlaintiff LiabilityDefendant LiabilityProximate CausationRecalcitrant Worker Defense
References
17
Case No. ADJ7648108
Regular
Sep 20, 2019

DOUGLAS HUSE vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's findings. The Board affirmed that a single physician's opinion can constitute substantial evidence, even if contradictory to other medical reports. Crucially, the Board noted that applicant's kidney cancer is a presumptive injury under Labor Code section 3212.1, precluding apportionment. Therefore, the applicant's claim for kidney cancer arising from his employment as a Sheriff's Sergeant was deemed valid and not barred by the statute of limitations.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCounty of San DiegoPermissibly Self-InsuredADJ7648108Petition for Reconsiderationsubstantial evidencemedical opinionsLabor Code section 3212.1presumptive injurykidney cancer
References
1
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. ADJ8150668
Regular
Aug 21, 2014

STEVEN JUDD vs. CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CORVEL CORVEL CORPORATIONS

This case concerns Steven Judd's workers' compensation claim for kidney cancer. The Appeals Board affirmed the finding that Judd sustained an industrial injury as a peace officer, granting him the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Board found the cancer developed during his employment, satisfying the statute's requirements even though it manifested later. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption by proving no reasonable link between the carcinogens Judd was exposed to and his cancer.

Labor Code section 3212.1peace officerkidney cancercumulative traumapresumptioncarcinogenlatency periodmanifestationdevelopmentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)
References
13
Case No. ADJ9697744
Regular
May 25, 2018

JASON POIRIER vs. CITY OF MENLO PARK, Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, CITY OF BRISBANE; Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's decision that denied Jason Poirier's claim for kidney cancer benefits. The Board found that the City of Menlo Park failed to rebut the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 that Poirier's cancer was industrially caused. Crucially, the Board ruled that Poirier's prior employment with the City of Brisbane could be combined with his Menlo Park employment to satisfy the minimum latency period for cancer causation, a point the trial judge had incorrectly excluded. Consequently, the Board amended the findings to establish that Poirier sustained an industrial injury and returned the case for benefit determination.

Labor Code section 3212.1renal cell carcinomacarcinogen presumptionrebuttallatency periodcumulative traumapolice officerCity of Menlo ParkCity of Brisbaneindustrial injury
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04334 [207 AD3d 827]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2022

Matter of Fierro-Switzer v. World Trade Ctr. Volunteer Fund

Claimant's spouse, a retired New York City firefighter, died from metastatic kidney cancer. Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits, attributing the cancer to the decedent's volunteer work at Ground Zero after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, citing the decedent's failure to file the mandatory WTC-12 registration form during his lifetime, a prerequisite for claims under Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that since the decedent was a volunteer at the time of exposure, his claim did not arise out of employment, thus precluding benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16. Furthermore, without the required registration form, no claim could be pursued under article 8-A.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsVolunteerWorld Trade Center9/11Toxic ExposureRegistration RequirementsRenal Cell CarcinomaArticle 8-ASection 16
References
10
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01671 [225 AD3d 536]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2024

Carranza v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order concerning a construction accident where plaintiff Delis Vasquez Carranza was injured by a falling 150-pound panel in an elevator shaft. The Appellate Division granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that the injury resulted from a falling object that should have been secured by a safety device. Concurrently, it affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against defendant Turner Construction Company. The court concluded that these claims were properly dismissed because the accident stemmed from the means and methods of the work, which were directed and controlled by the plaintiff's employer, and the general contractor's general supervisory powers were insufficient to establish liability for such claims.

Labor Law 240(1)Falling Object InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Division DecisionGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityEmployer ControlWorkplace Safety ViolationsElevator Shaft IncidentNegligence Dismissal
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 236 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