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

Lindloff v. Schenectady International

Plaintiff filed an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after being discharged from his position at Defendant's Lake Jackson, Texas facility. Plaintiff suffered from leukoderma, a skin condition caused by exposure to phenolic compounds in his workplace. Despite initial accommodations, Dr. Peltier eventually recommended Plaintiff completely avoid phenolic compound exposure, leading to his termination. The Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling that Plaintiff's leukoderma did not constitute a disability under the ADA as it did not substantially limit any major life activities. The Court also found no evidence that Defendant regarded Plaintiff as disabled, ultimately dismissing all claims with prejudice.

Americans with Disabilities ActADASummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationLeukodermaPhenolic Compound ExposureWorkplace InjuryFederal CourtFifth Circuit
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00878 [158 AD3d 921]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2018

Matter of Estate of James Yoo v. Rockwell Compounding Assoc., Inc.

James Yoo, a pharmacy student, died from fentanyl intoxication during an externship at Rockwell Compounding Associates, Inc. His mother commenced an action against Rockwell, alleging negligence, which was referred by Supreme Court to the Workers' Compensation Board to determine if an employer-employee relationship existed. The Board concluded that such a relationship did exist. The estate appealed this interlocutory decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, asserting that piecemeal review of workers' compensation issues should be avoided, and the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship is not a threshold legal issue warranting review before a final decision on the death benefits claim.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipInterlocutory AppealSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewFentanyl IntoxicationWrongful DeathDeath Benefits ClaimJudicial DismissalPiecemeal Review
References
8
Case No. 10-0775
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2014

Susan Elaine Bostic, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Timothy Shawn Bostic, Helen Donnahoe And Kyle Anthony Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Timothy Bostic died of mesothelioma. His relatives (Plaintiffs) sued Georgia-Pacific (and others) alleging exposure to asbestos from Georgia-Pacific's drywall joint compound caused his disease. The jury found Georgia-Pacific liable, but the court of appeals rendered a take-nothing judgment, finding insufficient evidence of causation. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment. The Court held that the "substantial factor causation" standard applies to mesothelioma cases, rejecting the "any exposure" theory. It clarified that "but for causation" is not a separate strict requirement in multiple-exposure cases. It stated that proof of causation requires scientifically reliable evidence that the plaintiff's exposure to the defendant's product more than doubled the risk of contracting the disease. The Court found the evidence of causation legally insufficient as the plaintiffs did not establish an approximate dose or show that Georgia-Pacific's product more than doubled Bostic's risk.

MesotheliomaAsbestosCausationSubstantial FactorBut For CausationToxic TortProducts LiabilityEpidemiologyDose-ResponseScientific Reliability
References
36
Case No. 11-04-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2006

John Dori v. Bondex International, Inc.

John Dori sued Bondex International, Inc. for mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to Bondex's asbestos-containing joint compound. The jury found a design defect in Bondex's products but awarded no damages. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment, which Dori appealed, arguing the zero-damage finding was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that Dori waived the argument regarding conflicting jury answers by not raising it before the jury's discharge. The court further determined that the no-damage findings were factually sufficient, given the considerable expert disagreement on whether Dori's specific type of mesothelioma could be caused by incidental chrysotile asbestos exposure from Bondex products.

MesotheliomaToxic TortPersonal InjuryAsbestos ExposureChrysotile AsbestosDesign DefectProducing CauseZero Damages RuleFactual SufficiencyJury Verdict
References
15
Case No. Appeal Nos. 5104, 5105, 5106, 5107, 5108, 5109, 5110, 5111
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2001

Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc.

This case involves an appeal by defendants-appellants from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied their motions for summary judgment in a series of lawsuits concerning asbestos exposure from Worthington pumps. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding sufficient issues of fact to preclude dismissal. Evidence presented included defendant Worthington's own admission of the high prevalence of its pumps on Navy ships, testimony from workers regarding Worthington pumps in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and Worthington's use of asbestos-containing components like gaskets and packing. The court also noted a Worthington manual referencing asbestos and government specifications requiring asbestos use, questioning whether the pumps could be safely operated without asbestos insulation despite Worthington not manufacturing or installing it.

Asbestos ExposureProduct LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty to WarnManufacturer LiabilityAppellate ReviewOccupational ExposureNavy ShipsGasketsPumps
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2013

Claim of DePascale v. Magazine Distributors, Inc.

The claimant applied for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma developed due to exposure to toxic substances at the employer's former nuclear fuel rod facility. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially reversed a WCLJ decision, finding insufficient evidence of a causal link. Later, the Board granted the claimant's request to consider new medical evidence, rescinded the WCLJ’s decision, and remitted the matter for a new determination. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed these Board decisions and the subsequent denial of their request for reconsideration. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals, deeming the Board’s decisions interlocutory and not final, thus not subject to piecemeal review.

Workers' CompensationCancerToxic ExposureCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceInterlocutory AppealAppeal DismissalRemittalBoard ReviewNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Valenti v. Penn Plax Plastics

The claimant, exposed to asbestos between 1965 and 1972, developed asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, and lung cancer. His 1995 workers' compensation claim was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board, which found his lung cancer causally related to asbestos exposure occurring before July 1, 1974, thus falling under the 'dust disease' rule requiring total disability for compensation. The claimant appealed, arguing lung cancer is not a dust disease. The appellate court reversed and remitted the decision, clarifying that while lung cancer itself is not a dust disease, the pre-1974 restriction applies if it's causally related to a dust disease like asbestosis. The court noted the Board failed to make a specific finding on this causal link.

asbestos exposurelung cancerasbestosisworkers' compensationdust diseasetotal disabilitypartial disabilitycausationremittalappellate review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kosovrasti v. Epic (217) LLC

This appellate decision addresses an appeal from an order that largely denied defendant Compound Contracting Inc.'s motion for summary judgment. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against Compound on the grounds that the supporting Industrial Code provision was insufficiently specific. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, citing remaining factual disputes concerning Compound's general control over the worksite and potential constructive notice of a hazardous condition. The ruling confirms that while Compound presented a prima facie case against its general contractor liability under certain Labor Law sections, the evidence from the plaintiff and co-defendant Tribbles raised triable issues of fact regarding Compound's supervisory role on the project.

Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeGeneral Contractor LiabilitySite SupervisionTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewNew York Supreme Court Appellate DivisionPersonal Injury
References
11
Case No. LBO 0377371
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

EDUBIJES TORREZ vs. RED HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, CHUBB SERVICES CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Chubb Insurance's petition for reconsideration, affirming the original finding that Edubijes Torrez sustained a cumulative trauma injury (leiomyosarcoma) due to chemical exposure as a groundskeeper. The Board found that despite the provision of protective gear in 1998, the applicant's exposure continued through his last year of employment, making Chubb, the insurer during that period, liable for the $100\%$ permanent disability award. Chubb's argument that exposure ceased in 1998 was rejected due to evidence of ineffective protective gear and continued exposure.

LeiomyosarcomaCumulative traumaLabor Code section 5500.5Injurious exposureRespirator protective gearLatency periodIndustrial chemical exposurePermanent disabilityGroundskeeperRed Hill Country Club
References
3
Case No. ADJ11721215
Regular
Mar 20, 2023

GLEN HODGES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns a firefighter's claim for melanoma under Labor Code section 3212.1, which presumes cancer is industrially caused. While the applicant raised the presumption through evidence of carcinogen exposure, the Appeals Board overturned the initial finding of industrial injury due to melanoma. The Board found the presumption was rebutted by expert medical opinion concluding the applicant's melanoma was not reasonably linked to industrial sun exposure, citing significant childhood sun exposure, tanning bed use, family history, and minimal workplace sun exposure to the affected area. The Board therefore granted reconsideration and amended the decision to exclude melanoma as an industrial injury, though actinic keratosis was still found to be industrially caused.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionrebutted presumptionqualified medical evaluatorindustrial injuryactinic keratosismelanomafirefightercarcinogenInternational Agency for Research on Cancer
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 927 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