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

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. 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 Surianello v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The claimant, an electrical construction mechanic, developed lung disease after working at the World Trade Center (WTC) site. He filed workers' compensation claims, and was eventually found permanently totally disabled. The self-insured employer sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, arguing a preexisting lung condition contributed to the disability. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied reimbursement, concluding the disability was solely caused by WTC site exposure. However, the appellate court reversed, citing medical evidence from pulmonologists Carl Friedman and Neil Schacter, which indicated the claimant's overall disability was materially and substantially greater due to a preexisting restrictive lung disease, not just WTC exposure. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

WTC Site ExposureOccupational Lung DiseaseSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting Medical ConditionPermanent Total DisabilityCausationMedical Expert OpinionAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Grill v. Fashion Institute of Technology

Claimant was diagnosed with interstitial pulmonary fibrosis and lung disease, established as a compensable occupational disease. The central issue was whether her condition qualified as a dust disease under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (ee), entitling the employer to Special Disability Fund reimbursement. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled against the employer, a decision subsequently affirmed. The court credited the treating pulmonologist's finding that the claimant suffered from pneumonitis due to aerosolized paint exposure, rather than pneumoconiosis, which is required for a dust disease classification. Therefore, the employer's appeal for reimbursement was denied.

Occupational DiseaseInterstitial Pulmonary FibrosisLung DiseaseDust DiseaseSpecial Disability FundWorkers' Compensation LawReimbursementPneumonitisPneumoconiosisAerosolized Paint Exposure
References
10
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 Heckerman v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.

The claimant, who worked in an asbestos-laden environment, developed an asbestos-related lung disease. After his initial claim for an occupational disease was disallowed, the Workers’ Compensation Board directed an examination by an impartial pulmonary specialist. Based on the specialist's reports, the Board established a causally related occupational disease, which was later amended to an accidental injury with an August 2, 2002 accident date. The employer appealed, challenging the Board's findings regarding causation and the date of injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support both the causally related condition and the determined date of injury, despite conflicting evidence.

asbestos exposurelung diseaseoccupational diseaseaccidental injuryWorkers' Compensation Boardcausationsubstantial evidencemedical expertappellate reviewdate of injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Webb v. Cooper Crouse Hinds Co.

In 1997, Jerry Webb (decedent) was found to have a permanent partial disability, 75% due to occupational lung disease. He died in October 2005, with his death certificate citing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due to asbestosis as the cause of death. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded death benefits to his wife (claimant), a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, finding a causal relationship between his death and the occupational disease. The employer appealed, arguing the Board applied an incorrect standard of review and improperly failed to apportion death benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that sufficient credible medical evidence supported the causal link and that death benefits are not subject to apportionment between work-related and non-work-related causes.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseAsbestosisChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseDeath BenefitsCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceApportionmentAppellate ReviewTreating Physician Testimony
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lalla v. Astoria Air Conditioning

Claimant, an air-conditioning repairman, developed an occupational lung disease. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found chronic obstructive and restrictive bronchopulmonary disease under Workers’ Compensation Law § 3 (2) (29), making the Special Disability Fund liable. The Fund later challenged this finding, requesting a reclassification under Workers’ Compensation Law § 3 (2) (30), which would discharge its liability. The Workers’ Compensation Board granted the Fund's application, reclassified the disease under section 3 (2) (30), and discharged the Fund. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed this decision, arguing the Board abused its discretion and that there was insufficient evidence for the reclassification. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the Board's continuing jurisdiction and discretion, and finding substantial medical evidence to support the reclassification.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BoardSpecial Disability FundLiability ReclassificationChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseBronchopulmonary DiseaseAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2006

Claim of McDonald v. Water Tunnel Contractors

The claimant, a former sand hog, filed for workers' compensation benefits after being diagnosed with occupational lung diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and silicosis. Initially, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the case for COPD and silicosis, and classified claimant with a permanent partial disability, leading to awards. The employer's carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for silicosis-related benefits, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (ee). However, a subsequent WCLJ decision, prompted by the Special Disability Fund, found no disability due to silicosis, thereby denying reimbursement. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this WCLJ decision, ruling that the Special Disability Fund lacked standing to challenge the diagnosis and was liable for reimbursement. This Court reversed the Board's decision, affirming that the Special Disability Fund has standing to challenge the diagnosis affecting its reimbursement liability, and found no substantial medical evidence in the record to support a finding of disability due to silicosis. Consequently, the Special Disability Fund is not required to reimburse the carrier for silicosis, and the case is remitted to the Board for further proceedings to determine if claimant suffers from another qualifying dust disease for which reimbursement may be applicable.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundSilicosisOccupational Lung DiseasePermanent Partial DisabilityReimbursement ClaimsStandingSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical Diagnosis
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrelli v. Atlantic Construction

The claimant, who previously suffered a hand injury and received a lump-sum settlement, filed a second workers' compensation claim in 2000 for asbestos-related lung disease. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded lost wages, but the Workers’ Compensation Board eliminated this award, ruling no causal relationship between the lung disease and loss of earnings, as the claimant retired due to other ailments. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the claimant's failure to seek suitable work within medical limitations despite doctors' warnings about asbestos exposure, and the lack of evidence that the lung disease affected his earning capacity.

Asbestos ExposurePleural DiseaseCausal RelationshipLoss of EarningsPermanent Partial DisabilityDisability RetirementMedical LimitationsEarning CapacityAppellate ReviewVocational Rehabilitation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,118 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