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

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

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
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. ADJ10332854
Regular
Jun 19, 2017

RALPH SWASEY vs. EL DORADO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves a worker's compensation claim for industrial injury to the left elbow and shoulder. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the chosen occupational group but increasing the permanent disability award from 21% to 23%. This increase occurred because the Qualified Medical Evaluator's apportionment of 10% to non-industrial factors was not supported by substantial medical evidence. Specifically, the doctor's reasoning for attributing disability to diabetes and arthritis was conclusory and did not adequately explain how these factors contributed to permanent disability rather than just healing time.

Petition for ReconsiderationOccupational Group Number 390ApportionmentMedical TreatmentPermanent DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceLabor Code 4663Labor Code 4664Industrial Injury
References
4
Case No. ADJ13704483
Regular
Jul 07, 2025

ROSS GRIMSLEY II vs. SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a Petition for Reconsideration from defendants, San Francisco Giants and ACE American Insurance Company, challenging a WCJ's decision regarding applicant Ross Grimsley II's occupational group code, the admissibility of Dr. Einbund's reports, and apportionment. The Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's use of Occupational Group 493 for the applicant's duties as a baseball coach, validating the admission of Dr. Einbund's reports due to the defendant's denial of liability and lack of timely objection, and upholding the rejection of apportionment opinions for failing to adequately explain the 'how and why' of non-industrial factors as required by legal standards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Occupational Group CodePrimary Treating Physician (PTP)Qualified Medical Examiner (QME)ApportionmentSubstantial EvidenceCredibility Determination
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Katz Park Avenue Corp. v. Jagger

Judge Ciparick issues a concurring opinion in an ejectment action, agreeing with the outcome of summary judgment against a tenant but dissenting from the majority's legal interpretation regarding the compatibility of B-1/B-2 visas and primary residency under New York's rent stabilization laws. Ciparick argues that while visa status can be a factor, it should not automatically disqualify a tenant from primary residency. The judge found that summary judgment was appropriately granted due to the tenant's unrebutted sporadic occupancy, lack of evidence of New York residency, and admissions of non-occupancy, establishing a prima facie case of non-primary residence, aligning with the rent stabilization law's goal of returning underutilized apartments to the market.

Rent StabilizationPrimary ResidenceB-2 VisaEjectment ActionSummary JudgmentNew York Rent LawImmigration StatusTenant OccupancyHousing LawConcurring Opinion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mellis v. New York State Department of Corrections

Claimant, a correction officer, tested positive for hepatitis C in March 1998 and later filed a workers' compensation claim. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled it an occupational disease, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the work-related accident claim time-barred and the occupational disease claim lacking competent medical evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision. The court found that the claimant failed to establish a recognizable link between his hepatitis C and his employment, as his treating physicians could not pinpoint the source of the infection, and one physician's opinion was partly based on the claimant's denial of other risk factors for exposure. The court concluded that the Board panel did not err in weighing the medical proof.

Hepatitis COccupational DiseaseCorrection OfficerWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceTime-Barred ClaimRisk FactorsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,372 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