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. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
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

Claim of Di Nicola v. Crucible Steel, Inc.

Claimant Samuel Di Nicola became disabled from obstructive pulmonary disease, an occupational disease, as a result of his 11-year employment by the self-insured employer, Crucible Steel. He worked in conditions with poor ventilation and significant dust, leading to respiratory complaints that began in 1971. Medical experts, Dr. Enders and Dr. Sipple, diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease aggravated by industrial exposure, while Dr. Miller, initially skeptical, conceded a possible work-related link. The employer appealed the Workers’ Compensation Board's finding of occupational disease and continuing disability, arguing it was contrary to case law. The court affirmed the board's decision, finding its classification consistent with prior rulings and supported by substantial medical evidence that the work environment aggravated claimant's pre-existing bronchitis and asthma.

Occupational DiseasePulmonary DiseaseChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseIndustrial ExposureDust ExposureBronchitisAsthmaWorkers' CompensationMedical EvidenceDisability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp.

This appeal concerns an employer challenging a worker's compensation award for an employee's total and permanent disability due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, an occupational disease. The employer contested the trial judge's findings on timely notice of the disease and medical causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding regarding disability and entitlement to worker's compensation benefits, agreeing that notice was timely given and medical causation was established. However, the court reversed the denial of the employer's contractual right to set off disability payments and credit for medical expenses paid under its disability plans, and remanded the case for a determination of these set-offs. The employee's condition was linked to exposure to pulmonary irritants in the workplace over 23 years.

Worker's CompensationOccupational DiseaseChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseMedical CausationNotice RequirementDisability Benefits Set-offEmployer LiabilityPulmonary IrritantsAppellate ReviewRemand
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1998

Claim of Cocco v. New York City Department of Transportation

Claimant, a bridge painter for 36 years, was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, leading to total disability since June 1993. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that his work for the employer aggravated a previously dormant and non-disabling pulmonary condition, deeming it an occupational disease under Workers’ Compensation Law § 3 (2) (30). The employer appealed this decision. The court differentiated between the aggravation of active versus dormant conditions, requiring a distinctive employment feature to activate a dormant one. It was determined that the claimant's exposure to noxious substances from sandblasting, paint stripping, and spraying red lead paint constituted such a feature. Expert testimony supported that the claimant's pulmonary condition was dormant and that his work exposure caused the disability, leading to the affirmation of the Board's decision.

Occupational DiseaseChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseAggravation of Preexisting ConditionBridge PainterNoxious Substances ExposureSandblasting HazardsCausation in WCDormant Condition ActivationSubstantial Evidence ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Imbriani v. Berkar Knitting Mills

Decedent, a heavy smoker, worked for 30 years in the textile industry, with the last five years exposing him to airborne cotton dust. He developed chronic advanced obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, and byssinosis, leading to total disability. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found his disability was due to byssinosis, an occupational disease, and awarded benefits. The employer did not appeal. Upon decedent's death a year later from cardiopulmonary arrest linked to his pulmonary disease and byssinosis, his widow filed for death benefits. A subsequent WCLJ reversed the prior finding of byssinosis, claiming insufficient evidence and lack of exposure to raw cotton. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this reversal. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding it arbitrary and capricious because the employer had not appealed the initial finding of byssinosis, making it final and binding. The Court also concluded that the Board's finding that death was unrelated to compensable byssinosis lacked record support, as medical testimony indicated byssinosis was a contributing factor. The case was remitted for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseByssinosisWorkers' CompensationPulmonary DiseaseEmphysemaCotton Dust ExposureCausal RelationshipDeath BenefitsRes JudicataCollateral Estoppel
References
8
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elaine W. v. Joint Diseases North General Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including Elaine W., sued Joint Diseases North General Hospital for unlawful sexual discrimination due to its policy of excluding pregnant women from its drug detoxification program. The hospital defended its blanket exclusion on medical grounds, citing a lack of specialized equipment, obstetricians, and licensing for obstetrical care. After conflicting rulings in lower courts, with the Appellate Division siding with the hospital, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court ruled that the hospital must prove its blanket exclusion is medically warranted at trial, rejecting the idea that a mere medical explanation, when disputed, validates a discriminatory policy. The case emphasizes that distinctions based on pregnancy constitute sexual discrimination under New York's Human Rights Law, requiring individual assessment unless a complete medical impossibility of safe treatment is demonstrated.

Sexual DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationDrug Detoxification ProgramHospital PolicyMedical JustificationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentBurden of Proof
References
11
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lachowicz v. Albany Medical Center Hospital

The case involves an appeal by the employer and its carrier from a Workmen's Compensation Board decision. The Board determined that the claimant, a machinist's helper, contracted pulmonary tuberculosis as an occupational disease due to exposure on contaminated equipment at the employer hospital. The central issue was whether there was substantial evidence to support this finding. The court noted evidence of the claimant working in contagious wards and repairing equipment like suction machines used for tuberculosis patients. Despite arguments about sterilization, the Board accepted the claimant's account of "dirty" machines, and with substantial medical evidence of causal relationship, the court affirmed the Board's decision.

Occupational DiseaseTuberculosisMachinist's HelperHospital WorkerContaminated EquipmentCausal RelationshipWorkmen's Compensation BoardAppealSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion Conflict
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 838 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