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

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
Nov 10, 2011

Claim of Gillard v. Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.

The employer and its third-party administrator appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying their claim for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for death benefits paid to a claimant. The claimant's husband, who had a workers' compensation claim established for permanent partial disability due to asbestos-related pleural disease, later died from lung cancer and congestive heart failure. The employer sought reimbursement, arguing a link between asbestosis and lung cancer, but the Board denied this, stating the original claim was not established for asbestosis and that the request to reopen was untimely. The Board further found no proof connecting asbestosis to the lung cancer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the reopening request was untimely and that there was no causal link shown between asbestosis and the lung cancer.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursementAsbestosisLung CancerCausal RelationshipTimelinessDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2001

Claim of Caiazza v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The claimant, a former machinist, developed skin cancer in 1990 and later lung and brain cancers in 2000, attributed to occupational exposure. Following his retirement in 2001, the employer conceded the lung and brain cancers were consequential to the initial skin cancer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant permanently totally disabled and awarded weekly benefits of $300, based on the original skin cancer disablement date of February 27, 1986. The claimant sought Workers' Compensation Board review, arguing for an April 24, 2000 disablement date (diagnosis of lung/brain cancers) to receive higher benefits of $400/week. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, citing the claimant's prior stipulation to modify the original claim for consequential injuries and established law that such awards are measured by rates at the time of the original injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it was not unreasonable to rely on the claimant's agreement and that the award rate was supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDate of DisablementBenefit Rate CalculationConsequential InjurySkin CancerLung CancerBrain CancerPermanent Total DisabilityAppellate Review
References
4
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. 2022 NY Slip Op 04609
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2022

Dyer v. Amchem Prods. Inc.

In this asbestos exposure litigation, defendant American Biltrite, Inc. (ABI) sought summary judgment on the issue of causation. The plaintiff's decedent, Kenneth C. Dyer, died from lung cancer and claimed exposure to asbestos from ABI's vinyl floor tiles. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order denying ABI's motion for summary judgment. The court found that ABI successfully made a prima facie case that the decedent was not exposed to sufficient quantities of respirable asbestos from its product to cause his lung cancer. The plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding specific causation, as the expert's conclusions lacked a reliable correlation between exposure levels and the causation of lung cancer, thereby failing to satisfy the standards set by Parker and Nemeth.

Asbestos exposureLung cancerSummary judgmentCausationToxic tortExpert testimonySimulation studiesRespirable asbestosVinyl floor tilesOccupational exposure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1978

Boney v. Gouverneur Talc Co.

The appellants, an employer and its insurance carrier, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, contending that the record lacked sufficient evidence to establish a definitive causal link between the decedent’s lung cancer (carcinomatosis) and his harmful mineral exposure, which admittedly caused pneumoconiosis. The Board had found, based on Mr. Kitts' testimony, that talcosis samples contained 2%-60% asbestos and, supported by Dr. Miller's testimony, that pneumoconiosis predisposes to lung cancer, and Dr. Maxon's testimony, that a definite relationship exists between asbestosis and lung cancer. Consequently, the Board concluded that the decedent's death from occupational talcosis was causally related to his compensable condition. The appellate court found that the record contained substantial evidence supporting the award of death benefits and therefore affirmed the Board's decision, with costs awarded against the employer and its insurance carrier.

Lung CancerPneumoconiosisAsbestosisOccupational DiseaseDeath BenefitsCausal RelationshipMedical TestimonyWorkers' Compensation AppealMineral ExposureTalcosis
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Freitag v. New York Times

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board which denied workers’ compensation benefits for her husband's lung cancer. The Board had reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's finding of causal relationship between the decedent's employment and his cancer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the claimant's expert opinions lacked probative value as they were based on unsubstantiated factual assumptions about the decedent's workplace exposure. The court emphasized that expert testimony must be grounded in facts supported by the record or personal knowledge. Additionally, a separate expert's opinion, noting the decedent's extensive smoking as the cause of lung cancer, further supported the Board's conclusion.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipExpert OpinionMedical EvidenceEvidentiary SupportLung CancerSmokingAppellate ReviewBoard ReversalFact-Finding
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Garrio v. Donovan

A porter-cleaner, disabled since 1989 due to lung cancer, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision which concluded his disabling lung condition was not work-related. Claimant’s treating physician opined that his conditions, including asbestosis, chronic bronchitis, and COPD, were causally related to occupational exposure to asbestos, coal dust, and soot. However, the employer’s expert and an impartial specialist concluded that the lung cancer and emphysema were caused by heavy cigarette smoking. The Board's decision, supported by the impartial specialist's and carrier's expert's opinions, was affirmed, finding sufficient medical evidence to resolve the conflict in opinions regarding causality.

Lung CancerAsbestosisChronic BronchitisCOPDCausationMedical Opinion ConflictExpert TestimonyWorkers' Compensation AppealOccupational ExposureCigarette Smoking
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 294 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