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

Litwack v. Plaza Realty Investors, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by toxic mold in a plaintiff's apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint, and these orders were subsequently affirmed on appeal. The central legal question revolved around whether the defendants' knowledge of a discolored, wet wall and a steam pipe leak constituted sufficient notice of a potential mold hazard. The majority concluded that such knowledge, as a matter of law, did not establish notice of potential mold growth. A dissenting opinion argued that the focus should be on whether defendants had notice of persistent water leaks, from which a hazardous mold condition was foreseeable, citing the plaintiff's repeated complaints and an expert's opinion.

Toxic MoldPersonal InjuryLandlord LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeWater DamageAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessPremises LiabilityEnvironmental Health
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cerny v. Marathon Oil Corp.

The Cernys sued Marathon Oil Corporation and Plains Exploration & Production Company for private nuisance and negligence, alleging toxic emissions from oil and gas operations in the Eagle Ford Shale damaged their health and property. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the Cernys took nothing. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the Cernys failed to present sufficient expert evidence to establish causation under the Havner standards for their toxic tort claims. The court also found insufficient lay evidence for their loss-of-use damages claim. It determined expert testimony was necessary due to the nature of toxic tort claims and the Cernys' pre-existing conditions and other potential causes.

Toxic TortNuisanceNegligenceSummary JudgmentCausationExpert TestimonyEpidemiological StudiesOil and Gas OperationsEnvironmental LawProperty Damage
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scalone v. Celotex Corp.

Plaintiff George Scalone, a New Jersey resident, brought an action in New York claiming asbestos-related injuries from exposure in New York worksites. Defendants Combustion Engineering, Inc. and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was time-barred by the New York Borrowing Statute (C.P.L.R. § 202). They contended that Scalone's cause of action accrued in New Jersey, where he became ill, and therefore New Jersey's statute of limitations should apply, precluding the New York Toxic Tort Revival Statute (C.P.L.R. § 214-c(2)). The court denied the motions, holding that for the purposes of the Toxic Tort Revival Statute, the place of accrual and place of injury are the same, and both are New York, given the plaintiff's exposure in the state. The court emphasized the remedial purpose of the Toxic Tort Revival Statute and found no clear legislative intent to exclude non-residents exposed in New York, even if they had other potential forums.

Toxic TortAsbestos ExposureStatute of LimitationsBorrowing StatuteToxic Tort Revival StatuteC.P.L.R. § 214-c(2)C.P.L.R. § 202Personal InjuryInterstate LawForum Shopping
References
2
Case No. ADJ6743571, ADJ7493283
Regular
Jun 14, 2013

STEPHEN CARBONARO vs. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY, DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, upholding the consolidation of two cases concerning toxic exposure claims. The Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the consolidation, as required by WCAB Rule 10843. Although the defendant argued it lacked an opportunity to respond to the initial consolidation order, the Board noted their Petition for Removal served as this response. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that consolidation was appropriate due to common issues of fact regarding toxic exposure and would promote judicial efficiency.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ConsolidationWCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10589irreparable harmsignificant prejudiceabuse of discretioncommon issues of factStatute of Limitationstoxic chemical exposure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zecca v. J. Levinsohn & Co.

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision. The Board awarded disability benefits to a claimant due to toxic hepatitis, classified as an occupational disease. The claimant, employed by a novelty manufacturer for six years, was exposed to fumes from lacquers and thinners containing toxic chemicals. Despite conflicting medical testimony, the board relied on the claimant’s medical expert, whose opinion was substantiated by pathological studies and biopsy reports. The court affirmed the finding of an occupational disease, recognizing the direct link between the claimant's chemical exposure and her condition. The decision and award were unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Occupational DiseaseToxic HepatitisChemical ExposureWorkmen's CompensationAppealMedical TestimonyPathological StudiesBiopsyCausationDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rice v. State

Paul Harold Rice appealed the revocation of his community supervision, contending the trial court erred by not sua sponte holding a hearing on his competency to stand trial. Rice, suffering from toxic metabolic encephalopathy and dementia due to toxic chemical exposure, was deemed 100% disabled under the Workers Compensation Act. The appellate court, applying a "bona fide doubt" standard, reviewed the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion. Despite evidence of Rice's medical conditions and psychological difficulties, the court found no indication he lacked the present ability to consult with his attorney or understand the proceedings. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding no bona fide doubt as to competency was raised.

Competency to Stand TrialDue ProcessAbuse of DiscretionCommunity Supervision RevocationToxic Metabolic EncephalopathyDementiaMental CompetencyCriminal ProcedureTexas LawAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. GTE Valeron Corp.

Charles Stevens, a former employee, sued his former employer under New York's Right to Know Law on Toxic Substances (Labor Law art 28). Stevens sought information about his exposure to toxic substances, including cobalt, during his 13 years of employment, but the defendant failed to provide adequate information. Stevens commenced an action seeking civil penalties and an order compelling disclosure, and subsequently died. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Stevens' estate, imposing a $10,000 fine on the defendant for non-compliance. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the Right to Know Law applies to former employees and that federal regulations did not preempt the state law.

Toxic SubstancesRight to Know LawEmployee RightsFormer EmployeesOccupational ExposureSummary JudgmentCivil PenaltiesWorkplace SafetyPreemption DoctrineLabor Law
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04293 [196 AD3d 1041]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2021

Cotter v. Lasco, Inc.

Plaintiff Emmet J. Cotter sued Lasco, Inc. and Leon Smith, III for injuries sustained during his employment, including a slip and fall and exposure to toxic fumes. The defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the order, granting summary judgment to dismiss claims against Leon Smith, III entirely, and dismissing claims against Lasco, Inc. related to toxic fume exposure due to being untimely. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the slip and fall claim against Lasco, Inc., finding that defendants failed to meet their burden to prove Lasco was an out-of-possession landlord and that issues of fact remained regarding notice of the dangerous condition.

Summary JudgmentToxic ExposureSlip and FallWorkers' Compensation LawCorporate Veil PiercingStatute of LimitationsPremises LiabilityOut-of-Possession LandlordErie CountyAppellate Division Fourth Department
References
13
Case No. 04-14-00650-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Michael A. Cerny and Myra L. Cerny, Individually and as Next Friends of Cameron A. Cerny, a Child v. Marathon Oil Corporation, Marathon Oil EF LLC, and Plains Exploration & Producing Company

The Cernys sued Marathon Oil and Plains Exploration & Producing Company for private nuisance and negligence, alleging that toxic emissions from their oil and gas operations in the Eagle Ford Shale caused health issues and property damage. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the Cernys presented no evidence of causation. On appeal, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court determined that the Cernys' claims were toxic torts requiring strict causation standards, including expert testimony to prove general and specific causation and to exclude other plausible causes, which the Cernys failed to provide. The appellate court also upheld the striking of the Cernys' summary judgment evidence.

Toxic TortNuisanceNegligenceSummary JudgmentCausationExpert TestimonyEpidemiological StudiesOil and Gas OperationsEnvironmental ContaminationProperty Damage
References
22
Case No. 13634/93
Regular Panel Decision

Annunziato v. City of New York

This case involves an action by 35 plaintiffs against the City of New York, seeking damages for personal injuries due to alleged exposure to toxic emissions from the Fresh Kills landfill. The defendant challenged 19 of these actions on Statute of Limitations grounds, specifically under CPLR 214-c. The court interpreted the 'discovery of the cause of the injury' to include the identification of the specific toxic substance. The motion to dismiss was ultimately denied for 14 plaintiffs but granted for five named plaintiffs (Brian Pisciotta, Anthony Ferrara, Michael Ferrara, Lori Ann DeForest, and Joshua Solomon) whose actions were deemed time-barred. Additionally, a motion for severance was denied, and a cross-motion to consolidate four actions under index No. 13634/93 was granted.

Statute of LimitationsToxic ExposureLandfill EmissionsPersonal InjuryCPLR 214-cDiscovery RuleProximate CauseEnvironmental LitigationMunicipal LiabilityTimeliness of Action
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 119 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