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. ADJ649373
Regular
Aug 01, 2014

TRENA GIBNEY vs. GLENDALE ADVENTIST HOSPITAL, ADVENTIST HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the judge's findings. The judge ruled that the applicant was entitled to referrals to a pulmonologist, nephrologist, and hematologist, as well as an AFO brace. The Board rejected the defendant's supplemental pleading and admonished their counsel for misstating facts, noting potential future sanctions. The applicant sustained a catastrophic injury as a registered nurse in 2008 and has undergone multiple surgeries, with the current dispute revolving around the medical necessity of further consultations and an AFO brace.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportsupplemental pleadingmisstating factssanctionsFindings and Awardpulmonologistnephrologisthematologist
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Goding v. Par Microsystems

This case involves a claimant's appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied benefits for a respiratory condition. The claimant alleged the condition was an occupational disease caused by workplace irritants. The Board's decision, which found no causal relationship between the condition and employment, was based on the opinion of a pulmonologist. This expert concluded that the claimant's respiratory distress was related to obesity, not occupational asthma or multiple chemical sensitivities. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board has the discretion to resolve conflicts in medical opinions, particularly when determining causality.

Occupational DiseaseRespiratory ConditionCausationMedical Opinion ConflictWorkers' Compensation BenefitsIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard DiscretionAsthmaMultiple Chemical SensitivitiesObesity
References
4
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. 2019-08-0120
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2019

Hardy, Tracy v. Hershey Co.

Tracie Hardy, an employee, sought medical and temporary disability benefits for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) allegedly resulting from her employment at Hershey Co. This was her second claim for the condition, as a previous claim in 2017 was settled as doubtful and disputed for $6,000, based on a pulmonologist's opinion that her COPD was not primarily work-related. The Court held an Expedited Hearing and denied her current request for benefits. The denial was based on the doctrines of accord and satisfaction, finding the prior settlement legally resolved the claim, and res judicata, concluding the same claim had been fully litigated and resolved previously. The Court determined Ms. Hardy was not likely to prevail at trial.

COPDAsthmaOccupational DiseaseChemical ExposureMold ExposureAsbestos ExposurePrior SettlementAccord and SatisfactionRes JudicataClaim Preclusion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Harrington v. L.C. Whitford Co.

The claimant, a construction worker, experienced a severe exacerbation of pre-existing asthma after exposure to burning lead paint fumes in June 1996. A certified pulmonologist, Richard Evans, determined the exposure caused a permanent and total disability. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found an accidental injury causing permanent and total disability, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed in August 2001. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the condition was pre-existing and only temporarily aggravated. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support that the work-site exposure significantly exacerbated the claimant's stabilized asthma, leading to a permanent and total disability.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityAsthma ExacerbationOccupational ExposureLead Paint FumesPre-existing ConditionMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewIndustrial Accident
References
14
Case No. 531672
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2021

Matter of Maldonado v. Doria, Inc.

Claimant Cesar Maldonado sustained a left ankle injury at work, which subsequently led to a causally-related pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Following further proceedings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board amended the claim to include major depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and cardiac arrest. The employer and its carrier appealed the inclusion of cardiac arrest, arguing a narrow definition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial medical evidence, including testimony from pulmonologists Nathan Rothman and Ali Eray Guy, supported the causal relationship between the cardiac arrest and the initial injury, rejecting the carrier's definitional arguments.

Ankle InjuryPulmonary EmbolismDeep Vein ThrombosisCardiac ArrestCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonySyncopal EpisodesOccupational Injury
References
8
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. E2024-01928-SC-R3-WC
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Lella Yvonne Graham v. CHI Memorial Healthcare System

Lella Yvonne Graham, an employee, sought workers' compensation benefits after allegedly contracting COVID-19 at her workplace, CHI Memorial Healthcare System. The employer denied the claim based on a pulmonologist's opinion that a primary causal link between work exposure and the virus could not be established. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, denying Graham's motion for continuance and striking her expert's report as inadmissible. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling Graham's appeal of the continuance denial untimely and her argument regarding the employer's failure to file a Notice of Controversy misplaced. The Panel concluded that the employer had negated the essential element of medical causation, and Graham failed to provide valid contradictory expert testimony.

Workers' CompensationCOVID-19 ClaimMedical CausationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExpert Medical TestimonyContinuance MotionImpairment RatingOccupational DiseaseEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. 2021-02-0225
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2023

Randall, Wilma v. Food Lion and Delhaize America, Inc.

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a trial court's denial of medical benefits to employee Wilma Randall, who sought treatment for pulmonary conditions allegedly caused by workplace chemical exposure at Food Lion, operated by Delhaize America, Inc. The employer denied causation, asserting no evidence of the conditions arising primarily from or being aggravated by workplace exposures. The trial court initially found insufficient evidence for the employee to likely prevail on medical causation, a decision upheld on appeal. The Appeals Board gave greater weight to the employer's expert toxicologist, Dr. Christopher Holstege, who reviewed more complete medical records and attributed symptoms to an infectious process, over the employee's treating pulmonologist, Dr. April Lambert, who causally connected the conditions to workplace chemicals but had reviewed fewer records. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseasePulmonary ConditionsChemical ExposureMedical CausationExpert Witness TestimonyAppellate ReviewTennessee LawExpedited HearingMedical Benefits
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Waddy v. Barnard College

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision affirming the disallowance of a claimant's application for benefits. The claimant, an employee in a mail room, alleged that exposure to dust and mold due to poor ventilation at her workplace caused her to develop disabling asthma. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, finding no causal relationship between her asthma and employment, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Board. The Board's determination was based on the medical opinions of the treating pulmonologist, William Marino, who could not establish work-related causation, and an independent medical examiner, Carl Friedman, who concluded that the asthma was not workplace-induced, referencing a negative indoor air quality test. While the claimant's family physician, Rajesh Patel, suggested a probable work-related allergen exposure, the Board resolved the conflicting medical evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the ruling that the claimant did not sustain a causally related injury.

Workers' CompensationAsthmaOccupational DiseaseCausationMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Treating PhysicianEnvironmental IrritantsWorkplace ConditionsAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10 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