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

Litwack v. Plaza Realty Investors, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by toxic mold in a plaintiff's apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint, and these orders were subsequently affirmed on appeal. The central legal question revolved around whether the defendants' knowledge of a discolored, wet wall and a steam pipe leak constituted sufficient notice of a potential mold hazard. The majority concluded that such knowledge, as a matter of law, did not establish notice of potential mold growth. A dissenting opinion argued that the focus should be on whether defendants had notice of persistent water leaks, from which a hazardous mold condition was foreseeable, citing the plaintiff's repeated complaints and an expert's opinion.

Toxic MoldPersonal InjuryLandlord LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeWater DamageAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessPremises LiabilityEnvironmental Health
References
3
Case No. ADJ3303329 (MON 0363353) ADJ6697361
Regular
Oct 21, 2010

RAMIRO O. VELASQUEZ vs. MOONLIGHT MOLDS, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, BROOKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOME STATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award, returning the case for further proceedings. The original award found the applicant suffered an industrial injury resulting in 64% permanent disability and the need for further medical treatment, including a rebuttal of the future earning capacity component. The defendant challenged the permanent disability rating, arguing the judge improperly applied the Ogilvie standard for assessing diminished future earning capacity. The Board found the applicant's testimony alone insufficient to rebut the scheduled factor, necessitating development of the record on earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMoonlight MoldsCypress Insurance CompanyRamiro O. Velasquezsandblasterlaborerindustrial injurylow backfuture earning capacitypermanent disability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brothers v. Tyco International, Ltd.

The plaintiffs contracted with ADT for a home security system. During installation, a worker employed by Tyco negligently damaged a waste disposal pipe, leading to a slow leakage and a mold condition in the plaintiffs' house. After recovering over $40,000 from their homeowner’s insurance for remediation expenses, the plaintiffs initiated this action against ADT and Tyco to recover consequential and incidental damages not covered by their insurance, such as those from mold exposure and life disruption. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The court found that the contract between the plaintiffs and ADT contained an unequivocal exculpatory provision, stating the defendants would not be liable for losses due to water intrusion or mold resulting from the security system installation, which the plaintiffs failed to rebut.

home security systemnegligent installationwaste pipe damagemold damageconsequential damagesincidental damagesexculpatory clausecontract disputesummary judgmentproperty damage
References
3
Case No. FRE 0217800; FRE 0218000; FRE 0222219; FRE 0222220; FRE 0222221
Regular
Jun 23, 2008

JULIO ALVAREZ vs. CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for reconsideration to correct a clerical error, increasing the permanent disability rating from 10% to 11% after apportionment, as stipulated by the parties. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury due to mold exposure or psychological injury, as the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for these claims. The Board found the WCJ's reliance on the toxicology expert's opinion was supported by substantial evidence, thus affirming the denial of mold-related injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentMold ExposureIndustrial InjuryAOE/COEClaim FormPresumption of CompensabilitySubstantial EvidenceClerical Error
References
15
Case No. ADJ3321482 (SAC 0347549)
Regular
May 29, 2012

MARYLOU SMITH vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for sinus injuries allegedly caused by workplace mold exposure. The defendant, County of Sacramento, sought reconsideration after an administrative law judge found the injury AOE/COE, relying on the applicant's treating physician's opinion. The defendant argued that the agreed medical examiner's opinion should have prevailed and that there was insufficient evidence of a materially greater workplace mold exposure. The majority of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the treating physician's opinion persuasive and sufficiently supported by medical evidence.

Agreed Medical ExaminerCausationMold ExposureFungal SinusitisIndustrial InjuryOccupational NexusMedical ProbabilitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2013

Claim of Cappelletti v. Marcellus Central School District

A school teacher filed a workers' compensation claim, asserting she developed an autoimmune disorder due to workplace mold exposure. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a compensable work-related injury, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending the claimant failed to demonstrate the condition resulted from unusual environmental conditions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the claimant's testimony of mold exposure and three medical opinions supporting a causal link. Despite conflicting evidence, the court found the Board’s decision supported by substantial evidence.

Autoimmune DisorderMold ExposureWorkplace InjuryWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionsCausationEnvironmental ConditionsClaimant Testimony
References
5
Case No. CV-24-0787
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Peter Hurley

Peter Hurley, a special education teacher, established a workers' compensation claim for asthma in 2018. After working remotely during the pandemic, his employer, Lawrence School District, required his return to in-person teaching. Due to his medical condition, he was assigned to an air-conditioned classroom and later a library, where construction dust and mold were reportedly not an issue. Hurley did not report to the library assignment, asserting his doctors advised against exposure to dust and mold. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a finding that Hurley's refusal was an unreasonable refusal of a job offer and a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, as his medical contentions were not sufficiently supported. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketAsthma ExacerbationJob RefusalMedical Evidence SufficiencyAppellate ReviewEmployer ReassignmentCOVID-19 ImpactSpecial Education TeacherWorkplace Allergens
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fraser v. 301-52 Townhouse Corp.

Plaintiffs, former residents of a cooperative apartment building owned by 301-52 Townhouse Corp., sought damages for personal injuries, including respiratory problems, rash, and fatigue, allegedly caused by dampness and mold. The defendants moved for summary judgment and preclusion of expert evidence. A Frye hearing was held to assess the general acceptance of plaintiffs' causation theory. The motion court granted the defendants' motion, precluding expert evidence and dismissing the personal injury claims, a decision that was upheld upon reargument and renewal. The appellate court affirmed, stating that association does not equate to causation and that plaintiffs failed to establish the general acceptance of their theory, specific causation, or reliable measurements of mold levels. The court also found good cause for the defendants' delayed motion for summary judgment.

Frye HearingExpert EvidenceCausationMold ExposureDampnessPersonal Injury ClaimSummary Judgment AffirmedScientific ReliabilityMedical Literature ReviewDifferential Diagnosis
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re New York City Asbestos Litigation

This case addresses the interpretation of CPLR 1601 regarding joint and several liability, specifically whether corporations that have filed for bankruptcy are considered beyond a court's "jurisdiction." The court, presided over by Edward H. Lehner, J., was tasked with molding judgments in five consolidated asbestos litigation actions. The central issue was whether the shares of fault attributed to bankrupt entities should be excluded from CPLR 1601 calculations for non-economic loss, thereby potentially increasing the liability of the non-settling defendant, Rapid-American Corporation. The court ruled that the term "jurisdiction" in CPLR 1601 should be enlarged to mean "effective jurisdiction," thus allowing for the exclusion of bankrupt entities from fault apportionment if effective jurisdiction cannot be obtained. The decision on the final molding of judgments was held in abeyance, pending a hearing to determine which corporations were subject to a bankruptcy statutory stay and verification of settlement amounts for offsets under General Obligations Law § 15-108.

Asbestos litigationCPLR 1601Joint and several liabilityBankruptcy stayEffective jurisdictionWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement offsetsJudgment moldingPersonal injuryTortfeasors
References
11
Case No. ADJ9447222
Regular
Jun 23, 2015

Gloria Gutierrez vs. Moonlight Companies, Zenith Insurance Company

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition to disqualify the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The applicant alleged the WCJ formed an unqualified opinion on the merits of the case. While the WCJ initially dismissed the claim based on a misunderstanding of the law, he later rescinded the dismissal and scheduled further proceedings. The Board found no evidence the WCJ formed an unqualified opinion and believes he can render a fair hearing.

Petition for disqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJunqualified opinionmerits of actionLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defensereporting of injuriesCode of Civil Procedure section 641(f)Order Rescinding Dismissal
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 41 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