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. 2024-50-3519
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2025

Green, Crystal v. 101 Vape & Smoke, LLC

Crystal Green, an employee, appealed a trial court's decision regarding her workers' compensation claim against 101 Vape & Smoke, LLC, following a right ankle injury. The trial court had initially ruled that multiple related companies with common ownership could be considered a single entity, thus meeting the five-employee threshold for workers' compensation coverage, and ordered the employer to provide a panel of physicians. However, it denied temporary disability benefits due to a lack of medical evidence. The Appeals Board reversed this decision, finding insufficient proof that 101 Vape & Smoke, LLC, as a standalone entity, employed the requisite number of people. The Board emphasized that the critical inquiry is whether the specific employer directly utilized the services of five or more paid individuals, not whether separate LLCs could be collectively grouped without such evidence, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation EligibilitySmall Business EmployerEmployee Threshold DeterminationCorporate Veil PiercingConsolidated EmployersAppellate Review StandardsJurisdictional DisputesProof of EmploymentTemporary Benefits DenialPhysician Panel Order
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377

The Attorney-General initiated an action seeking a permanent injunction against the Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377, its president Murray Brodsky, and business agent Jack Flaum. The complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in an illegal combination, violating New York's Donnelly Anti-Trust Law (General Business Law § 340), by coercing manufacturers and retailers in the smoked fish industry to deal exclusively with Distributors Division members. Although the defendants claimed exemption as a bona fide labor union, the court found that the Distributors Division was merely a jobbers association disguised as a union to create a monopoly and restrain trade. The organization's activities involved threats, intimidation, and misleading picketing to compel adherence to its demands, ultimately harming competition and forcing retailers to pay higher prices. Consequently, the court ruled that the injunction should be granted, concluding that the Distributors Division was not a legitimate labor union and its practices were illegal.

anti-trustmonopolylabor unioninjunctiontrade restraintGeneral Business LawDonnelly Actjobbers associationcoercionpicketing
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landgraff v. 1579 Bronx River Avenue, LLC

This personal injury action arises from allegations that plaintiff Anthony Landgraff sustained injuries during employment with J.H. Loewy, Inc., a plumbing subcontractor, while removing a sprinkler system at premises owned by 1575 Bronx River Avenue, LLC and renovated by LSK Smoked Turkey Products, Inc. The injured plaintiff fell from a scaffold due to insufficient safety devices. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court also granted 1575 Bronx River Avenue, LLC's cross-motion for contractual indemnification against J.H. Loewy, Inc. and LSK Smoked Turkey Products, Inc., and LSK Smoked Turkey Products, Inc.'s cross-motion for contractual indemnification against J.H. Loewy, Inc. Additionally, 1575 Bronx River Avenue, LLC was found entitled to common-law indemnification from LSK Smoked Turkey Products, Inc. However, the court declined to grant summary judgment for 1575 Bronx River Avenue, LLC against J.H. Loewy, Inc. on common-law indemnification and against LSK Smoked Turkey Products, Inc. on contractual indemnification due to an inadequate record. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

personal injuryscaffold accidentLabor Lawabsolute liabilityindemnificationcontractual indemnificationcommon-law indemnificationgrave injurysummary judgmentappellate review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johannesen v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Claimant, an office assistant for the City of New York, developed bronchial asthma due to prolonged exposure to tobacco smoke and dust in her crowded office. She filed for workers’ compensation benefits, initially deemed a compensable occupational disease by a WCLJ. The Workers’ Compensation Board later rescinded this, finding instead an accidental injury from repeated exposure to cigarette smoke, and remitted the case. The employer appealed, arguing preclusion by *Matter of Mack v County of Rockland* and lack of substantial evidence. The court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing *Mack* and finding substantial evidence for an unusual environmental hazard and definite disabling events leading to accidental injury.

Occupational DiseaseAccidental InjuryBronchial AsthmaCigarette Smoke ExposureWorkplace HazardWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical AggravationEnvironmental HazardSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Columbia Construction Co. v. Sims

This workmen's compensation case addresses whether an appellee's emphysema, developed after exposure to phosphorus smoke during employment, is compensable as an "occupational disease" under T.C.A. § 50-1101. The trial court found the appellee totally disabled and his emphysema resulted from employment but initially concluded it was not a listed occupational disease. However, the trial judge then awarded benefits based on a misinterpretation of Martin Brothers Container & Timber Corp. v. Lynch, believing it judicially established emphysema as an occupational disease. The Supreme Court of Tennessee clarified that Martin Brothers was specific to its facts and did not create a universal rule. The Court found the appellee failed to provide medical evidence satisfying the American Insurance Co. v. Ison test, which requires demonstrating the unlisted disease is "closely related" to a statutory occupational disease. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the suit.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseEmphysemaPhosphorus Smoke ExposureDisability BenefitsT.C.A. § 50-1101Medical EvidenceCausationStatutory InterpretationJudicial Precedent
References
2
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

Edwards v. Neponsit Care Center

On February 16, 1995, while evacuating patients from a fire, claimant, a hospital police officer, suffered smoke inhalation and injuries to his neck, back, and arm. His workers' compensation claim was established for bronchitis, but the case was closed without a finding of permanency. The case was reopened due to ongoing respiratory issues. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that claimant did not suffer a further causally related disability due to his bronchitis. This decision was affirmed on appeal, citing the testimony of physician Abiola Familusi, who stated that while claimant had chronic bronchitis and rhinitis causally related to the accident, it did not prevent him from returning to his job, provided he avoided smoke exposure.

Smoke InhalationChronic BronchitisChronic RhinitisCausally Related DisabilityHospital Police OfficerRespiratory ProblemsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical Expert TestimonyDisability RetirementWorkers' Compensation Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lincoln v. Consolidated Edison Co.

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from September 8, 2006, which denied death benefits for her husband (decedent). The Board had ruled that the decedent’s lung cancer, leading to his death, was caused by cigarette smoking and not causally related to asbestos exposure, despite prior disability claims. However, the Appellate Division reversed this ruling, finding the Board improperly rejected uncontroverted medical testimony that asbestos exposure significantly contributed to the decedent’s lung cancer. The court found that the Board had fashioned its own medical opinion without expert support, thus rendering its determination unsupported by the record. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

AsbestosisLung CancerCausationMedical Expert TestimonyBoard Decision ReversalRemittalSmokingAsbestos ExposureAppellate ReviewUncontroverted Evidence
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00070 [190 AD3d 1067]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2021

Matter of Sudnik v. Pinnacle Envtl. Corp.

Wieslaw Sudnik appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied his claim for benefits, asserting kidney cancer was caused by exposure to toxins near the World Trade Center site after 9/11. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a causal link, but the Board reversed, citing insufficient proof. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that the claimant's treating physician and an independent examiner failed to adequately establish a causal relationship between his employment near the World Trade Center and his renal cell carcinoma, especially considering his history of smoking and asbestos exposure. The court emphasized that the claimant did not meet his burden of proof with competent medical evidence, and therefore the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationCausationMedical EvidenceBurden of ProofRenal Cell CarcinomaAsbestos ExposureWorld Trade Center ExposureZadroga LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. 525010
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2018

Matter of Esposito v. Tutor Perini Corp.

Claimant Joseph Esposito sought workers' compensation benefits for various lung diseases, alleging causation from workplace pollutant exposure while employed by Tutor Perini Corporation. The Workers' Compensation Board initially precluded the reports and testimony of claimant's medical expert, Lester Ploss, due to non-compliance with regulations governing independent medical examination reports, specifically the failure to submit referenced documents to the Board. Ultimately, the Board found insufficient credible evidence to establish the claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the ruling. The Board credited the testimony of Dr. Monroe Karetzky, who attributed Esposito's pulmonary issues to cigarette smoking rather than his work environment, and also discredited the claimant's work history and personal smoking habits.

Workers' Compensation LawIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Evidentiary RulingsMedical Expert TestimonyCausation (Medical)Pulmonary DiseaseCredibility DeterminationsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewRegulatory Compliance
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 955 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