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

Cunningham v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a car inspector, experienced incapacitating neck, back, and leg pain in 2010, following non-work-related automobile accidents in 1988 and 2003. He sought workers’ compensation benefits, arguing his physical and psychiatric conditions were an occupational disease due to repetitive work tasks. Although the employer failed to timely file a notice of controversy, precluding them from submitting evidence on the course of employment, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and Board disallowed the claim, deeming the treating physicians' causation opinions incredible. The Appellate Division affirmed, stating the claimant still bore the burden of proving a causal link, and the Board was justified in rejecting the medical evidence as incredible, thus supporting the finding of no causally related occupational disease.

Occupational DiseaseCausationMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewNotice of ControversyBurden of ProofCredibilityRepetitive TasksSpinal Problems
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vazquez v. Orange County Rehabilitation Center

Plaintiff's ward was allegedly sexually assaulted by defendant Lewis while engaged in piecework at a sheltered workshop operated by Occupations. Defendants Occupations and Lewis asserted workers' compensation coverage as affirmative defenses. The court held that claims occurring before July 22, 1989, when Mental Hygiene Law § 33.09 (c) excluded sheltered workshop participants from workers' compensation, are not subject to the defense. For claims after July 22, 1989, when the law was amended to allow coverage if elected, the issue of workers' compensation coverage is referred to the Workers' Compensation Board. Defendant Orange County Department of Mental Health's motion for summary judgment was granted due to lack of evidence linking them to the incident or supervision of Occupations.

sexual assaultsheltered workshopworkers' compensationsummary judgmentaffirmative defensestatutory constructionjurisdictionMental Hygiene Lawamendmentnegligence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1983

Hennige v. Fairview Fire District

A fire lieutenant, an employee of the Fairview Fire District for 10 years, developed anxiety neurosis in January 1978 and was referred to a psychiatrist. He subsequently had long absences from work and, upon returning, no longer answered fire calls or supervised firefighters. An administrative law judge initially found that he suffered from an occupational disease, a finding affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board on February 8, 1983. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that while mental injury from psychic trauma can be compensable, it does not automatically constitute an occupational disease under Workers' Compensation Law § 3 (subd 2). The court clarified that for a disorder to be an occupational disease, the causative factor must be inherent in the job to the exclusion of other agents, and the employee must not be singularly vulnerable. Citing the claimant's personal vulnerabilities, the court suggested the condition might be an accidental injury and remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings to consider this possibility.

Anxiety NeurosisOccupational DiseaseAccidental InjuryPsychic TraumaWorkers' Compensation LawCausationRemittalFirefighterMental InjuryVulnerability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Konieczny v. Butterflake Shop

Claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 8, 1977, which ruled that he did not suffer from an occupational disease. The claimant, employed as a baker, was diagnosed with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthmatic bronchitis, and emphysema, following a history of heavy smoking. The record contained conflicting medical evidence regarding the link between his employment and his condition. The court affirmed the Board's determination, holding that when medical proof is contradictory, the question of occupational disease is one of fact for the Board, and their finding was supported by substantial evidence, particularly Dr. Riley's testimony.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseAsthmatic BronchitisEmphysemaConflicting Medical EvidenceQuestion of FactSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical Testimony
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2002

Claim of Gandolfo v. MTK Electronics

Claimant, employed by MTK Electronics, developed Hodgkin’s disease due to exposure to trichloroethylene and trichloroethane. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a causally related occupational disease and awarded benefits, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board emphasized the claimant's treating physician's expert testimony, which established a link between the disease and chemical exposure at work. The employer's requests for reconsideration or full Board review were denied. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the causal link between claimant's employment and her occupational disease.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseHodgkin's DiseaseChemical ExposureTrichloroethyleneTrichloroethaneCausalityExpert TestimonyMedical OpinionBoard Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Estrada v. Peepels Mechanical Corp.

The claimant's case was established for occupational disease resulting in bilateral hearing loss. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined the date of disablement and, after initial discharge, reinstated the State Insurance Fund (Fund) to produce an apportionment report between occupational disease and traumatic hearing loss. The Fund appealed this decision. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently found the Fund was not the proper party as it did not cover the employer on the date of disablement and reversed the order for the apportionment report. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier then appealed the Board's decision. The higher court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that a claim for traumatic hearing loss was never formally made or pending before the Board.

Occupational DiseaseBilateral Hearing LossApportionmentDate of DisablementWorkers' Compensation CarrierState Insurance FundBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewTraumatic Hearing LossWCLJ Decision
References
1
Case No. ADJ1748495 (SAC 0288002)
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

ERIC STEWART vs. SOLON FIRE CONTROL, CAMBRIDGE SAN DIEGO

This case involves an applicant claiming workers' compensation for sarcoidosis allegedly caused by occupational exposure to dry fire extinguisher chemicals. The administrative law judge initially found no industrial causation, favoring the defendant's medical examiner over the applicant's. On reconsideration, the Appeals Board affirmed this decision, finding the applicant failed to prove it was reasonably probable his condition arose from employment due to a lack of early irritative symptoms and the presence of prior skin lesions. The dissenting commissioner argued that the applicant's credible testimony and the applicant's QME's report sufficiently established industrial causation, as sarcoidosis can have an insidious onset.

SarcoidosisIndustrial causationQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Dry fire extinguisher chemicalsCumulative traumaPulmonary systemSkin involvementMedical evidenceOccupational exposureImmunologic processes
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Heckerman v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.

The claimant, who worked in an asbestos-laden environment, developed an asbestos-related lung disease. After his initial claim for an occupational disease was disallowed, the Workers’ Compensation Board directed an examination by an impartial pulmonary specialist. Based on the specialist's reports, the Board established a causally related occupational disease, which was later amended to an accidental injury with an August 2, 2002 accident date. The employer appealed, challenging the Board's findings regarding causation and the date of injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support both the causally related condition and the determined date of injury, despite conflicting evidence.

asbestos exposurelung diseaseoccupational diseaseaccidental injuryWorkers' Compensation Boardcausationsubstantial evidencemedical expertappellate reviewdate of injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.

This case involves an unnamed plaintiff diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) who sued several defendants, including Mobil Oil Corporation, Island Transportation Corporation, and Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc., alleging occupational exposure to benzene caused his illness. The defendants moved in limine to preclude the plaintiff's expert testimony on medical causation and for summary judgment, arguing the causation theory was unreliable. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied these motions. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff's experts failed to quantify benzene exposure and establish a scientifically reliable causal connection. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.

Medical CausationToxic ExposureBenzeneAcute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML)Expert Testimony AdmissibilityFrye StandardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewOccupational HazardScientific Reliability
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 1,357 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