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
Aug 22, 2014

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Claimant, a laborer and light equipment operator, filed for workers' compensation benefits in May 2013, alleging occupational hearing loss from loud noise exposure during his employment from 2003 to 2012. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that claimant suffered a causally-related binaural loss of hearing. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator appealed, contending that the record lacked evidence of injurious noise exposure and a causal link. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, giving deference to the Board's finding that the opinion of the treating otolaryngologist, Sayeed Nabi, was more credible. Nabi had concluded that the significant improvement in claimant's hearing after cessation of employment indicated noise-induced hearing loss.

Occupational Hearing LossNoise ExposureCausal RelationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBinaural Hearing LossMedical EvidenceTreating PhysicianConflicting Medical OpinionsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
11
Case No. CV-24-0449
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Claimant, Guy Spada, a heavy equipment operator, sought workers' compensation benefits for binaural hearing loss attributed to prolonged workplace noise exposure. The employer, Keeler Construction Company, and its carrier controverted the claim, disputing a causal relationship. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's finding of a causally-related hearing loss. The court determined that the medical opinions supporting causation lacked a rational basis due to inconsistent medical histories provided by the claimant, documented other sources of noise exposure, and audiogram results deemed inconsistent with noise-induced hearing loss by the carrier's consultant. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseBinaural Hearing LossCausationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewInconsistent HistoriesAudiogram ResultsNoise ExposureSchedule Loss of Use
References
14
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04341 [151 AD3d 1152]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2017

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Daniel Durkot, a pressman, sought benefits for occupational hearing loss due to workplace noise exposure since 2010. His requests for a schedule loss of use award were repeatedly denied as premature by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board ruled that setting the date of disablement was premature under Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bb because he continued to work in the same position and was exposed to the same noise, even with ear protection. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant had not been "removed from exposure to harmful noise" for the requisite three-month period, as his continued use of the same ear protection that failed to prevent the initial hearing loss did not constitute effective removal.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSchedule Loss of Use AwardDate of DisablementWorkplace Noise ExposureEar Protection DevicesSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewClaimant AppealEmployer Responsibility
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2008

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The claimant, who worked for the employer for 31 years, filed a claim in August 2007 alleging occupational hearing loss due to long-term noise exposure from telephone use. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a 20.4% schedule loss of use for binaural hearing loss, which the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. The employer appealed, arguing insufficient proof of injurious noise exposure and a lack of causal connection between the employment and the hearing loss. The appellate court agreed with the employer, finding the claimant's description of noise levels too vague and the medical testimony, specifically from treating otolaryngologist Robin Lazar-Miller, to be based on erroneous assumptions and not adequately refuting the employer's expert, Joel Bernstein. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the claim was dismissed due to insufficient proof of causation.

References
2
Case No. 2015-07-0445
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2017

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Jerry Coleman, an employee of Armstrong Hardwood Flooring, filed a claim for hearing loss attributed to workplace noise exposure. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Jackson determined that Mr. Coleman established a compensable sensorineural hearing loss. Based on Dr. Christopher Hall's medical opinion, the court awarded permanent partial disability benefits equaling 14% to the body as a whole, specifically linking this percentage to noise exposure. Mr. Coleman was also granted future medical benefits, with Dr. Hall as the authorized treating physician, but his request for increased benefits was denied due to voluntary retirement.

Hearing LossNoise ExposurePermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' CompensationMedical Impairment RatingSensorineural Hearing LossConductive Hearing LossApportionmentMedical EvidenceVocational Factors
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

In October 1993, a claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits due to hearing loss from noise exposure during their employment as a pressman. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established occupational disease, notice, and causal relationship (ODNCR) and awarded benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the establishment of ODNCR but rescinded the award of compensation as premature, restoring the case to the trial calendar for further development of the record on the issue of the claimant's removal from or separation from harmful noise exposure. The employer appealed this Board decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory, stating that it neither disposed of all substantive issues nor involved a threshold legal issue that could be dispositive of the claim.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseHearing LossPremature AwardInterlocutory AppealAppellate ProcedureBoard DecisionClaim DismissalRecord DevelopmentNew York Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 1999

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The claimant, an operating engineer, sought workers' compensation benefits for a 27.9% binaural hearing loss allegedly sustained during his employment with Kings Park Industries. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found the claimant had removed himself from harmful noise exposure. However, in an amended decision, the Board ruled there was insufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between the claimant's hearing loss and his employment, subsequently denying his claim for benefits. Both the carrier and the claimant appealed this amended decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's findings regarding both the claimant's removal from noise exposure and the lack of causal relationship evidence, thereby upholding the denial of benefits.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' Compensation Law § 49-bbCausal RelationshipMedical Evidence RequirementsHarmful Noise ExposureWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionsAppellate ReviewDenial of BenefitsPrima Facie Medical EvidencePhysician Testimony Preclusion
References
7
Case No. CV-23-2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Claimant, Andrew P. DeWolf, an emergency medical technician for Wayne County, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging binaural hearing loss due to prolonged workplace noise exposure. While the Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the claimant failed to provide competent medical evidence to establish a causally-related occupational disease. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding the medical opinions from two otolaryngologists to be speculative due to insufficient data on noise levels, duration of exposure, and the claimant's recreational hunting history. The court also dismissed the claimant's arguments regarding jurisdiction and due process.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseHearing LossCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewEMTWorkplace Noise ExposureSpeculative Medical OpinionDue Process
References
13
Case No. 531864
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2021

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

In this workers' compensation appeal, claimant Wieslaw Gandurski sought benefits for binaural hearing loss, alleging it was an occupational disease from prolonged noise exposure as an asbestos handler for Abatech Industries, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) disallowed the claim, finding insufficient medical evidence to establish a causal link, noting inconsistencies in claimant's medical history and his continued noise exposure in subsequent employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the WCB's decision, deferring to the Board's factual determinations and credibility assessments, which were deemed supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that there was inadequate medical proof to connect claimant's hearing loss to his work with the employer of record. Claimant's remaining contentions were found to be without merit.

Occupational DiseaseBinaural Hearing LossAsbestos HandlerWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewUnion Organizer
References
11
Case No. CV-24-0449
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Claimant, a heavy equipment operator, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging binaural hearing loss due to prolonged workplace noise. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision establishing the claim for occupational disease and an 11.25% schedule loss of use. The employer and carrier appealed, contending a lack of causal relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board's decision that claimant sustained a causally-related binaural hearing loss was not supported by substantial evidence. The court cited inconsistent medical histories, other documented sources of noise exposure, and audiogram results that were inconsistent with noise-induced hearing loss, reversing that part of the decision and remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseHearing LossCausationMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewSchedule Loss of UseNoise ExposureInconsistent Medical History
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 899 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