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

Knapp v. Vestal Central School District

Claimant, a music teacher for Vestal Central School District, sought workers' compensation benefits for multiple chemical sensitivity, attributing it to a "sick building" at her workplace. She experienced symptoms like fatigue, aches, and memory loss, with her initial "sick building syndrome" diagnosis evolving to "multiple chemical sensitivity." A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board denied her claim, finding no causal link between her condition and employment due to insufficient evidence of chemical exposure or an unusual workplace hazard. The Board also determined that the record did not support claims for accidental injury or occupational disease, noting the absence of a specific toxin and claimant's similar symptoms elsewhere. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that the claimant failed to establish a causal relationship between her employment and disability.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausally Related DisabilityMultiple Chemical SensitivitySick Building SyndromeOccupational DiseaseAccidental InjuryMedical Examiner Report AdmissibilityHazardous ExposureCausal RelationshipEmployment-related illness
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1993

Archer v. IBM Corp.

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied her claim for benefits, which alleged an acquired sensitivity to chemicals from exposure at IBM Corporation. The Board determined there was insufficient evidence of a causally related occupational disease. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing expert testimony from an IBM physician, Franklin Aldrich, who found no causal link between the claimant's dermatitis and workplace chemicals, despite conflicting testimony from other experts.

Occupational DiseaseChemical SensitivityWorkers' Compensation AppealCausationDermatitisExpert Medical TestimonySufficiency of Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2014

Claim of Angela Page v. Liberty Central School District

The claimant, a school librarian, sought workers' compensation benefits in July 2004 for a disability from toxic mold exposure, leading to an established claim for hypersensitivity and awards for temporary total disability. In 2006, the claim was amended to include multiple chemical sensitivity, and awards for marked disability continued. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) later classified the claimant with a permanent total disability in March 2010, but the Workers' Compensation Board rescinded this finding and referred the matter to an impartial medical specialist, Theodore Them. Them testified that multiple chemical sensitivity is not a medically recognized condition and that the claimant had no causally-related disability, which the Board credited in its December 2012 decision, finding no further causally-related disability and closing the case. The claimant's subsequent appeal of this decision was not perfected, and an application for reconsideration was denied. An April 2013 WCLJ decision to further develop the record on disability was challenged by the employer, who argued the December 2012 Board decision had resolved the issue. The Board panel agreed with the employer in January 2014, precluding further development of the record, a decision which this Court affirmed on appeal, stating the issue of causally-related disability had been decided and the claimant's remedy was a timely appeal of the prior Board decision.

References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maynor v. Dow Chemical Co.

This case is a collective action suit brought by Roy Maynor and other employees against The Dow Chemical Company under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid wages and overtime. The plaintiffs alleged that Dow failed to compensate them for time spent training for and taking mandatory skills-assessment tests required by a collective bargaining agreement. The court addressed multiple pending motions: the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the compensability of training time and waiver of claims, and Dow's motions for partial summary judgment on Maynor's individual claims and to decertify the class. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion regarding waiver, granted in part and denied in part on the compensability of training time, and denied all of Dow's motions, allowing the collective action to proceed.

FLSAUnpaid WagesOvertime PayCollective ActionMandatory TrainingSkills AssessmentEmployee CompensationRetaliation ClaimSummary Judgment MotionsClass Decertification
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angus Chemical Co. v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc.

An explosion at a nitroparaffin plant owned by Angus Chemical Company and managed by IMC Fertilizer Group, Inc. in Louisiana led to multiple lawsuits. Angus and IMC eventually settled, with Angus releasing IMC from most claims arising from the explosion. Subsequently, Angus sued IMC's insurers in Louisiana. IMC then initiated a declaratory action in Texas, contending that the release granted to IMC by Angus also extended to IMC's insurers. The district court ruled in favor of Angus, but the court of appeals reversed this decision. The Texas Supreme Court granted Angus's application for writ of error, reversing the judgment of the court of appeals and remanding the case to the district court. The Supreme Court held that under Texas law, an insurer is not released from liability unless explicitly named in the release, regardless of whether the insured has been released.

direct actioninsurer liabilityrelease of claimstortfeasorthird-party claimsLouisiana lawTexas lawwrit of errorsummary judgmentconflict of laws
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1994

Meek v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, Local 8-209

This case originated from a personal injury lawsuit filed by Warren Earl Meek and his wife Lockie Meek against multiple defendants, including American Protective Services, Inc. (APS), Thomas R. Moss, and Occidental Chemical Corp. The core of this order addresses the cross-motions for summary judgment regarding claims for defense and indemnification between APS/Moss and Occidental. APS and Moss sought summary judgment on their claims that Occidental was contractually obligated to defend and indemnify them. Occidental, in turn, cross-moved to dismiss these claims, asserting that no contract existed or that existing agreements did not cover indemnification for APS's own negligence. District Judge Arcara adopted Magistrate Judge Heckman's Report and Recommendation, which concluded that the contracts did not demonstrate an 'unmistakable intent' for Occidental to indemnify APS and Moss for damages arising from their alleged negligence. Consequently, APS and Moss's motion for summary judgment was denied, and Occidental's cross-motion to dismiss the defense and indemnification claims was granted.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationContract LawNegligence ClaimsPersonal Injury LiabilityThird-Party IndemnitySecurity Services ContractLabor DisputeFederal JurisdictionReport and Recommendation
References
13
Case No. 01-16-00633-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2018

Donato Polignone and Neal D. Roy v. Bulldog Chemicals, LLC

Appellants Donato Polignone and Neal D. Roy challenged a no-answer default judgment rendered in favor of Appellee Bulldog Chemicals, LLC, stemming from a breach of contract and quantum meruit claim for unpaid goods totaling $21,750. The appellants argued the trial court erred by not granting their motion for new trial and by entering judgment against them individually, asserting a lack of standing as their business dealings were with NuGenTec Oilfield Chemicals, LLC, and their failure to answer was an oversight. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Bulldog Chemicals had standing and the appellants failed to meet the Craddock requirements for setting aside a default judgment. The Court also denied Bulldog Chemicals' request for sanctions for frivolous appeal.

Default judgmentbreach of contractquantum meruitstandingmotion for new trialCraddock testappellate reviewTexas lawcivil procedurecommercial dispute
References
51
Case No. 08-25-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2025

Helena Chemical Company v. Philip Bales, Derek Dieringer, Wilber Dieringer, Michael Hoch, CMH Farms, Inc., MH Farms Services, Inc., Whit Braden, Donald Braden and Streicher Farms, Inc.

Helena Chemical Company sought a permissive appeal of a trial court's interlocutory order denying its no-evidence motion for summary judgment in a toxic tort and negligence lawsuit. The Appellees, who are farmers and landowners, filed suit against Helena Chemical, alleging that its aerial application of herbicide negligently spread onto their cotton fields, causing damage to their crops and yields. Helena Chemical contended that the Texas Supreme Court's holding in Helena Chemical Company v. Cox, 664 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. 2023), dictated that the Appellees' expert scientific testimony was unreliable and amounted to no evidence of causation. However, the appellate court denied the petition for permissive appeal, concluding that the applicability of Cox as controlling precedent does not present a 'controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion,' as the standards for admissibility of expert testimony in toxic tort cases are well-established by Texas jurisprudence.

Permissive AppealInterlocutory OrderSummary JudgmentToxic TortNegligenceExpert TestimonyCausationHerbicide DriftCrop DamageTexas Law
References
21
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,855 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