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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2002

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The claimant, a cytology technician, sought workers' compensation benefits for an occupational disease involving toxoplasmosis and xylene exposure. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the claim, but the employer's carrier appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board, after consulting an impartial specialist who found no evidence of toxoplasmosis and determining xylene exposure was within acceptable limits, denied the claim. The claimant then appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial, citing substantial evidence and confirming the Board's discretionary authority to review the WCLJ's decision despite a procedural challenge.

occupational diseasetoxoplasmosisxylene exposureworkers' compensation benefitscausally related disabilitysubstantial evidenceBoard reviewuntimely appealcredibilityimpartial medical examination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

INA of Texas, a workers' compensation carrier, appealed a judgment awarding occupational disease benefits to James E. Adams for hearing loss. Adams claimed his hearing loss was due to repetitious trauma during his employment with Texaco, Inc. The appellate court reviewed legal and factual sufficiency arguments regarding the causal relationship between Adams' employment and his hearing loss, the compensation rate, and special issues submitted to the jury. The court ultimately sustained points of error concerning the compensation rate and the jury's finding of total loss of use, deeming the evidence insufficient for total loss. Consequently, the case was reversed and remanded for a new trial to determine the appropriate compensation based on partial loss of use.

Occupational DiseaseHearing LossRepetitious TraumaCausationMedical EvidenceSufficiency of EvidenceCompensation RateTotal DisabilityPartial DisabilityDate of Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The case involves an appeal by the employer and its carrier from a Workmen's Compensation Board decision. The Board determined that the claimant, a machinist's helper, contracted pulmonary tuberculosis as an occupational disease due to exposure on contaminated equipment at the employer hospital. The central issue was whether there was substantial evidence to support this finding. The court noted evidence of the claimant working in contagious wards and repairing equipment like suction machines used for tuberculosis patients. Despite arguments about sterilization, the Board accepted the claimant's account of "dirty" machines, and with substantial medical evidence of causal relationship, the court affirmed the Board's decision.

Occupational DiseaseTuberculosisMachinist's HelperHospital WorkerContaminated EquipmentCausal RelationshipWorkmen's Compensation BoardAppealSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion Conflict
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2006

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Claimant, employed in data entry, developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and sought workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially dismissed the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the condition to be an occupational disease causally related to employment, based on agreement between the treating physician and an independent medical examiner, and the carrier's failure to request cross-examination. The carrier appealed, arguing the Board erred in its finding regarding cross-examination and mischaracterized medical evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the carrier waived its right to cross-examination by not making a timely request and finding no basis to disturb the Board's assessment of the medical evidence.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeWorkers' CompensationMedical EvidenceCross-Examination WaiverAppellate ReviewCausationEmployment-Related InjuryMedical Expert TestimonyBoard Decision Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

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
Showing 1-10 of 1,207 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