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
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 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

Hernandez v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Rhode Island

LARSEN, Justice, concurring. I concur with the majority, but write to add an additional compelling reason the time of an employee’s “first distinct manifestation” of occupational disease should control carrier liability. If we held that the last injurious exposure controlled, it would create a situation where carriers could avoid liability for occupational disease by simply cancelling worker’s compensation coverage while workers remained exposed to an injurious substance. If a carrier learns early of a disease common to an industry, it could thus avoid paying the majority of claims for that disease. This situation could have disastrous effects in industries where occupational diseases have a lengthy onset, for example those where workers develop asbestosis and silicosis after many years of exposure. The majority opinion is in harmony with the general rule, frequently recited, that the Worker’s Compensation Act should be liberally construed in the worker’s favor. Attaching carrier liability to the first distinct manifestation of an occupational disease is not only compatible with the general law in this area, it also avoids the potential for a carrier’s escape from liability by canceling coverage in a workplace where the potential for numerous occupational disease claims exist. For this reason, as well as those cited in the majority opinion, I concur.

occupational diseasecarrier liabilityworker's compensationasbestosissilicosisinsurancestatutory interpretation
References
0
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

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. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. 524849
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2018

Matter of Yonkosky v. Town of Hamburg

Claimant, a seasonal laborer for a municipal highway department, developed right shoulder problems in July 2014 and was later diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff. He filed a workers' compensation claim, asserting it was an occupational disease from emptying asphalt-filled wheelbarrows. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed an award of benefits, classifying it as an occupational disease. The employer appealed, arguing it was an accidental injury, making the claim untimely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence to establish a "recognizable link" between the injury and a distinctive feature of his employment to qualify as an occupational disease, and remitted the matter. The dissenting opinion argued that the strenuous nature of the work activity could constitute an occupational disease regardless of its prolonged duration.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation LawRotator Cuff InjuryCausally Related InjuryAccidental InjuryTimeliness of ClaimRepetitive Stress InjuryAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 1986

Claim of Mack v. County of Rockland

Claimant, a psychiatric social worker, alleged that prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke in her locked hospital unit caused eye irritation and an aggravation of pre-existing asymptomatic non-occupational binocular keratitissicca, constituting an occupational disease. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found an occupational disease. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this finding, determining that there was no distinctive feature of the claimant's employment that could have caused or aggravated the condition. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that no occupational disease claim could be sustained as the disability was not incident to the particular employment.

Occupational DiseaseSecondhand Smoke ExposureEye IrritationPsychiatric Social WorkerAggravation of Pre-existing ConditionWorkers' Compensation LawBoard ReversalAppellate ReviewDistinctive Feature of EmploymentBinocular Keratitissicca
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aldrich v. St. Joseph's Hospital

Claimant, a licensed practical nurse, sought workers' compensation benefits for a bone spur in her foot and knee, which she attributed to repetitive walking required by her job since 1990. After an initial controversion, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the case for occupational disease, notice, and causal relationship, awarding benefits. This decision was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending the condition was not a compensable occupational disease under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (15). The court found substantial evidence, including medical testimony, to support the Board's finding of a recognizable link between the claimant's condition and the distinctive feature of her occupation, specifically extensive walking on hard floors. Therefore, the decision finding a compensable occupational disease was affirmed.

Occupational DiseaseBone SpurLicensed Practical NurseRepetitive WalkingCausal RelationshipWorkers' Compensation LawMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewFoot and Knee PainWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Butler v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co.

This is a workers' compensation case where Mary Alice Butler appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Federated Mutual Insurance Company. The district court had ruled against Butler, citing her alleged failure to provide timely notice and file her claim within the statutory period under article 8307, section 4a of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. On appeal, the court reversed the summary judgment, concluding that material fact issues existed concerning when Butler first distinctly manifested her occupational disease and whether she showed good cause for any delay in notice or filing. The court also clarified the distinction between occupational disease and accidental injury cases regarding notice requirements and declined to consider alternative grounds for affirming the summary judgment. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseSummary JudgmentTimely NoticeClaim FilingGood CauseFirst Distinct ManifestationDegenerative ArthritisTexas LawAppellate Review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,646 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