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. OAK 0317695
Regular
Aug 23, 2007

PERTTI KAKSONEN vs. U.C. BERKELEY, SEDGEWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant feasible for employment, despite his latex allergy. The Board found no evidence that the applicant was unable to work in environments containing latex, citing his ability to drive long distances and complete vocational rehabilitation classes. The decision also noted that the applicant had not presented evidence to justify using the 1997 permanent disability rating schedule and that newly discovered evidence was not properly submitted.

Permanent Disability Rating ScheduleVocational RehabilitationLatex AllergyFeasible for EmploymentReconsideration DeniedLabor Code Section 5903Newly Discovered EvidenceWCJ OpinionQRR TestimonyDr. Tannenbaum Report
References
0
Case No. ADJ179070
Regular
Sep 22, 2008

COLLEEN POGUE vs. SIERRA SURGERY CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB granted reconsideration and affirmed the WCJ's decision awarding applicant 100% permanent total disability for a work-related psychiatric injury and latex allergy, amending the award to include a cost of living adjustment.

Psyche injuryLatex allergyPermanent total disabilityReconsiderationApportionmentLabor Code section 4659(c)Cost of living adjustmentFindings and AwardWCJAppeals Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2000

Capezzuti v. Glens Falls Hospital

The claimant, a registered nurse with a severe latex allergy, sought workers' compensation benefits after being unable to work since July 1996. Benefits were initially awarded, then discontinued due to insufficient medical documentation. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied benefits for a specific period and ruled that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the court reversed the WCLJ and Board's finding of insufficient medical evidence for benefits from December 1996 to January 1997, remitting this part for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the Board's determination that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, citing her limited efforts to find alternative employment despite her disability.

Workers' CompensationLatex AllergyVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewJob Search EffortsCausationNurseWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruse v. Holiday Inn

The claimant, an assistant chef at Holiday Inn, suffered severe anaphylactic shock due to a shellfish allergy, which was exacerbated by preparing seafood dishes during his employment. After multiple severe attacks, medical tests revealed the allergy in 2000. He filed for workers' compensation benefits in 2001, alleging his allergic reactions constituted an accidental injury that rendered him unfit for his job. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found an accidental injury and awarded benefits. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing against the finding of an accidental injury. The appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that severe allergies arising from workplace exposure can constitute a compensable accidental injury, especially when they aggravate a preexisting condition, and found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination.

Workers' CompensationAnaphylactic ShockShellfish AllergyOccupational InjuryAccidental InjuryPreexisting ConditionAggravation of ConditionCausal RelationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Komisar v. Witco Corp.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant, who worked for 30 years mixing latex and chemicals for a rubber product manufacturer, sustained an occupational disease due to chronic chemical exposure. Expert medical testimony supported this finding. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of an occupational disease.

occupational diseasechemical exposurerubber productsmedical testimonyworkers' compensationappellate reviewimpairmentcausationaffirmation
References
0
Case No. ADJ6780755
Regular
Oct 08, 2012

MARYLYNN REYNOLDS vs. EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL, PROTECTED INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR SCHOOLS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The applicant alleged industrial injury to her internal system due to chemical exposure from a vandalized classroom. However, the Qualified Medical Evaluator found no evidence that the applicant's symptoms were industrially caused, suggesting they were likely related to pre-existing allergies and asthma. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for an industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationindustrial injurychemical exposureteacherfire extinguisher vandalismrespiratory systemnervous systemfaceeye irritation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Vernoia v. National Council on Compensation Insurance

The claimant, an attorney, developed allergic rhinitis due to dust and an air-conditioning malfunction at his New York City workplace, leading to his resignation in December 1983. The Workers’ Compensation Board found his condition resulted from an industrial accident in August 1983. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, stating that a dormant allergy exacerbated by gradual absorption of environmental irritants over time constitutes a disease, not an accident, under workers' compensation law. Consequently, the claim for benefits was dismissed.

Allergic RhinitisOccupational DiseaseIndustrial AccidentWorkers' Compensation BoardAllergy ExacerbationWorkplace EnvironmentCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewClaim Dismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

Malone v. Court West Developers, Inc.

Plaintiff Leslie Malone alleged personal injuries (asthma and permanent allergies) due to mold contamination while working at a bank branch owned by defendant Court West Developers, Inc. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint as untimely under the statute of limitations. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff's alleged exposure to the toxic substance did not occur within three years of commencing the action. The court also concluded that the plaintiff's initial symptoms were too intermittent and inconsequential to trigger the statute of limitations.

Statute of LimitationsToxic TortMold ExposurePersonal InjuryAsthmaAllergic ReactionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureDiscovery RuleIntermittent Symptoms
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Adams v. Univera Health Care/Excellus

Claimant, a patient service representative, stopped working due to severe coughing attributed to environmental irritants. A workers' compensation law judge and the Workers' Compensation Board initially found a compensable, work-related injury. However, the employer appealed this decision, arguing a lack of evidence for an identifiable workplace allergen. The court sided with the employer, concluding that there was no substantial medical evidence to establish a causal link between the claimant's condition and the workplace, given the absence of a specific allergen identification and the claimant's pre-existing allergies. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the claim was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationEnvironmental IrritantsAllergiesWorkplace ConditionsSubstantial EvidenceMedical EvidenceAppealDisability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Baxter v. Myers

Claimant, a dietary aide for Bristol Myers, began experiencing severe allergic reactions like shortness of breath and headaches shortly after commencing employment, which she attributed to chemical fumes. Despite indicating hayfever and allergies on her application, her condition progressively worsened. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found she suffered an accidental injury due to her work environment aggravating her preexisting allergic sensitivities and pulmonary condition. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the claimant sustained an accidental injury, even if it accrued gradually over time.

Accidental InjuryPreexisting ConditionAggravation of ConditionChemical Fumes ExposureAllergic ReactionsPulmonary ConditionDietary Aide EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 17 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