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
Mar 23, 2000

Ramnarine v. Memorial Center for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jagdeo Ramnarine, an employee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, suffered a laceration at the Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases. He subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit. The defendant, Memorial Center, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as both the Center and the Hospital operate as a single integrated employer despite their separate legal entities. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court found substantial evidence supporting the integrated employer argument, thereby limiting the plaintiff's remedy to workers' compensation benefits and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntegrated Employer DoctrineSummary Judgment ReversalNegligence ClaimCross Claims DismissedCorporate Alter EgoCommon ControlBronx CountyAppellate DivisionLabor Law
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02445 [237 AD3d 1500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Wendy Cooper, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cooper was terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was later declared null and void in an unrelated case. The arbitrator, however, upheld Cooper's termination based on the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, reinstating Cooper, finding it irrational and against public policy. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirming the arbitration award. It held that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the award, as petitioners failed to prove it violated a strong public policy or was irrational under CPLR 7511 (b), reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards.

Arbitration AwardVacaturPublic PolicyIrrationalityCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitation
References
9
Case No. ADJ6766227
Regular
Mar 25, 2013

DAVID CASE vs. CITY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Fresno's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the prior finding that the applicant sustained cumulative industrial injuries of throat/tongue and prostate cancer while employed as a police officer for the City of Fresno. Despite the prostate cancer manifesting after applicant's employment with the City ended, the Board found the City liable based on the long latency period of the cancer and the applicant's presumed exposure to carcinogens during his employment. The defendant failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption of liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDavid CaseCity of Fresnocumulative industrial injurythroat cancertongue cancerprostate cancerpolice officerLabor Code section 3212.1presumption of compensability
References
2
Case No. ADJ11415215
Regular
Oct 05, 2020

Kenneth Hazelbaker vs. California Highway Patrol, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior award for applicant Kenneth Hazelbaker's industrial prostate cancer. The Board affirmed the finding that the cancer is presumed compensable under Labor Code section 3212.1, as medical evidence supported its development within the statutory period. The WCJ's reservation of jurisdiction was also upheld, as prostate cancer was correctly deemed an insidious and progressive disease. Finally, the Board confirmed the applicant's entitlement to permanent disability indemnity based on maximum earnings under Labor Code section 4458.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Highway PatrolState Compensation Insurance FundKenneth HazelbakerPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial cumulative traumaprostate cancerLabor Code section 3212.1presumed compensable
References
2
Case No. ADJ9468922
Regular
Aug 11, 2025

THEODORE DAVIS vs. CITY OF MODESTO, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS CONCORD

The applicant, Theodore Davis, a firefighter for 36 years, developed prostate cancer which was denied by the City of Modesto. The case revolves around the application of Labor Code section 3212.1, which establishes a rebuttable presumption of compensability for cancer in firefighters. The Workers' Compensation Judge found that the medical opinion of PQME Dr. Allems, which stated that prostate cancer was not industrially caused in firefighters, was based on an incorrect legal theory and contained inconsistencies. Consequently, this opinion was deemed not substantial evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, leading to the denial of the Petition for Reconsideration by the Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Industrial CausationAOE/COELabor Code Section 3600Cancer PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.1Firefighter
References
9
Case No. Index No. 161136/17 Appeal No. 15141 Case No. 2021-02236
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Quiroz v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jose Alfonso Perez Quiroz, a construction worker, sustained injuries after falling from an unstable scaffold at a site managed by Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases and general contractor Turner Construction Company. He initiated legal action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Quiroz's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the unsecured scaffold to be a proximate cause of his fall. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as academic.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment AppealPlaintiff LiabilityDefendant LiabilityProximate CausationRecalcitrant Worker Defense
References
17
Case No. ADJ8441431
Regular
Feb 14, 2020

MITCHELL LEMAY vs. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; Permissibly SelfInsured; MARIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT; Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by KEENAN AND ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a previous decision regarding applicant Mitchell Lemay's claims for prostate cancer and heart trouble/hypertension, finding both employers jointly and severally liable. Reconsideration was granted primarily to address issues surrounding a hernia injury. The Board deferred the hernia injury claim, along with related medical treatment and permanent disability, due to insufficient evidence to determine if it was a separate injury or a consequence of medical treatment. The prior findings regarding the prostate cancer and heart trouble/hypertension, including no apportionment of permanent disability for these conditions, were upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardContra Costa CountyMarin Community College DistrictDeputy SheriffChief of PoliceProstate CancerHeart TroubleHypertensionHerniaLabor Code section 3212.1
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tucker v. City of Plattsburgh Fire Department

Justice Egan Jr. dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Board abused its discretion in characterizing the medical expert's proof as speculative. The dissent focuses on the expert opinion of Michael Lax, who found a probable causal connection between the claimant's occupation as a firefighter, his exposure to carcinogenic materials, and his diagnosed prostate cancer. Lax's opinion was based on the claimant's 24 years of exposure, absence of other prostate cancer risk factors, and epidemiological studies. The dissent emphasizes that medical opinions do not require absolute certainty, only a reasonable probability supported by a rational basis. The dissent notes that at various administrative stages, a causal relationship was found, highlighting the lack of unanimity in the final Board decision.

Prostate CancerFirefighterCausal ConnectionMedical Expert OpinionSpeculative ProofWorkers' Compensation LawOccupational ExposureCarcinogenic MaterialsDissenting OpinionBurden of Proof
References
3
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03994 [242 AD3d 57]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2025

Brennan v. MacDonald

Michael W. Brennan, a former Bay Constable, developed prostate cancer after exposure at the World Trade Center site following the September 11th attacks. He filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against his primary care physician, Glenn J. MacDonald, M.D., alleging a delay in diagnosis and treatment. Concurrently, Brennan filed a claim with the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) for his World Trade Center-certified prostate cancer. MacDonald successfully moved to amend his answer to assert an affirmative defense that Brennan had waived his right to a civil action by filing with the VCF, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that the submission of a VCF claim constitutes a waiver of the right to pursue civil litigation for 9/11-related damages.

Medical MalpracticeSeptember 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF)Waiver of Civil ActionElection of RemediesAffirmative DefensesProstate Cancer DiagnosisWorld Trade Center ExposureAppellate ReviewDismissal of ComplaintTimeliness of Motion
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 220 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