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

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

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

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. 2021 NY Slip Op 06411 [199 AD3d 1214]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Urdiales v. Durite Concepts Inc/Durite USA

Claimant Jose Urdiales appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his benefits for respiratory problems allegedly due to an occupational disease from epoxy exposure. The Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling, crediting the employer's testimony over the claimant's regarding his work activities. Medical opinions supporting the claimant's condition were based on his disputed work history. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's findings on witness credibility and rejection of medical evidence based on an inaccurate work history were supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseRespiratory IssuesEpoxy ExposureChemical ExposureCausationWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsClaim DenialAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. ADJ3755232 (VNO0493072)
Regular
Aug 29, 2013

AKHMADMIR ABDULMIR vs. MED-PHARMEX, INC., EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award, finding that the applicant sustained industrial injury to his low back but not his kidneys or abdomen, and his occupation was a material handler/machine loader (group 460). The WCAB found that the opinions of the applicant's Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) were not substantial evidence due to numerous discrepancies and an inadequate history. The WCAB also found the primary treating physician's (PTP) reports insufficient as they were stale, not based on an accurate history, and lacked review of all medical records. The case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings on all other deferred issues.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderPrimary Treating PhysicianTemporary DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentApportionmentLabor Code section 4658(d)(2)Permanent DisabilityAttorney's Fees
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Connolly v. Hubert's Service, Inc.

Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits for her husband, an automobile mechanic, citing occupational asbestos exposure as the cause of his lung cancer and subsequent death. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, finding no credible medical evidence of significant occupational asbestos exposure. The employer and carriers' medical expert attributed the lung cancer to the decedent's long-standing smoking history and family predisposition, concluding employment did not contribute to his death. Despite conflicting medical opinions presented by the claimant, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings.

Workers' CompensationLung CancerAsbestos ExposureOccupational DiseaseCausationMedical EvidenceSmoking HistoryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionDeath Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Yanas v. Bimbo Bakeries

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for wrist pain, including carpal tunnel syndrome and flexor tendonitis, alleging it was an occupational disease from duties at Bimbo Bakeries. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the claim, finding insufficient evidence of repetitive motion and rejecting physician opinions for lacking adequate understanding of the claimant’s work and medical history. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. On appeal, the court further affirmed, emphasizing that the Board’s factual findings regarding occupational disease, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed, and that the Board is entitled to reject medical evidence deemed inadequately founded.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRepetitive Strain InjuryMedical CausationSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard DecisionPhysician TestimonyWork ActivitiesCredibility Assessment
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06524
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

Matter of Yearwood v. Long Is. Univ.

Claimant Trina Yearwood sought workers' compensation benefits for bilateral wrist, hand, and thumb pain, diagnosed as an occupational disease from repetitive stress. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially established the claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision and disallowed the claim because Yearwood failed to disclose a prior 2014 treatment history for hand problems to her treating physician, the IME physician, or the Board. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board rationally concluded the medical providers lacked sufficient understanding of claimant's complete medical history to proffer a credible opinion on causation, and thus her medical proof was insufficient.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Stress InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeMedical Evidence CredibilityTreatment History NondisclosureCausal ConnectionIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewBoard Discretion
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,162 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