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
Sep 30, 2013

Broome County v. The Travelers Indemnity Company

This case involves cross-appeals from an order concerning an insurance dispute. The plaintiff, an insured party, experienced property damage due to silica dust migration during construction, which they claimed was covered by their first-party insurance policy with the defendants, The Travelers Indemnity Company and The Travelers Companies, Inc. The defendants disclaimed coverage based on pollution and faulty workmanship exclusions. While the Supreme Court initially found issues of fact, the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court ruled that both the pollution exclusion, defining silica dust as a pollutant, and the faulty workmanship exclusion, pertaining to flawed construction processes, unambiguously applied to bar coverage. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to the defendants, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Insurance PolicyFirst-Party CoveragePollution ExclusionFaulty Workmanship ExclusionSummary JudgmentSilica DustProperty DamageAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationAmbiguity in Policy
References
19
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01829 [159 AD3d 1457]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2018

Rickicki v. Borden Chem.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, heard an appeal concerning two actions, Rickicki v Borden Chemical and Crowley v C-E Minerals, Inc., both involving claims for damages due to silicosis from silica dust exposure at Dexter Corporation. The core legal dispute centered on the applicability of the 'sophisticated intermediary doctrine,' which asserts that product manufacturers have no duty to warn ultimate users if an informed intermediary, like an employer, is aware of the product's dangers. Reversing the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the Appellate Division declined to recognize this doctrine under the specific facts of this case. Consequently, the court reinstated negligence and products liability causes of action based on failure to warn, along with loss of consortium claims, against the defendant silica manufacturers. The decision emphasized that whether adequate warnings were provided to the injured workers and if failure to warn was a proximate cause remained triable issues of fact.

Sophisticated Intermediary DoctrineFailure to WarnProducts LiabilityNegligenceSilica Dust ExposureSilicosisProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
36
Case No. SRO 0115364
Regular
Jul 09, 2007

PAULETTE BELL vs. SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous award, and found that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury. While the applicant experienced exposure to asbestos, silica, and lead, there was insufficient medical evidence to establish a present injury or need for treatment. The Board clarified that the applicant may pursue a claim in the future if a disability arises from the exposure.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial ExposureAsbestosQuartz SilicaLeadDate of InjurySelf-Procured Medical ExpensesCumulative TraumaSpecific Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Filipowicz v. De Laval Separator Co.

This case concerns an appeal by an employer and carrier challenging an award for total disability due to silicosis. It was conceded that the claimant suffered from silicosis and was permanently and totally disabled. Appellants argued that there was no proof of injurious exposure during the claimant's last employment with the employer. However, evidence showed the claimant worked as a trucker in the employer's rubber plant, where he was exposed to talc containing silica. The board found sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between this exposure and the claimant's disability, thus affirming the award.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseTotal DisabilityInjurious ExposureTalc ExposureFoundry WorkerRubber PlantWorkers' Compensation BoardCausal Relation
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07113 [211 AD3d 1273]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Candela v. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc.

Claimant Rosario Candela, a construction worker, filed for workers' compensation benefits, alleging lung cancer due to asbestos and silica exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the establishment of an occupational disease claim but was reversed by the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division found that the Board incorrectly determined the liable employer and carrier by solely relying on the date of disablement. The court emphasized that Workers' Compensation Law § 44 requires identifying the last employer in the employment to which the disease was due and contracted, not just the employer at the date of disablement. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for a redetermination of the proper employer and/or carrier on the risk using the correct legal standard.

occupational diseaselung cancerasbestos exposuresilica exposureworkers' compensation benefitsdate of disablementemployer liabilitycarrier liabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 44apportionment
References
6
Case No. 534516
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Rosario Candela

Rosario Candela, a construction worker, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits due to lung cancer caused by asbestos and silica exposure. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, though the Board adjusted the date of disablement and found American Zurich Insurance liable. The employer and carrier appealed this decision. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board improperly applied Workers' Compensation Law § 44 by focusing solely on the date of disablement rather than the timing of the disease's contraction and the last employer in the employment that caused the disease. The case was remitted to the Board for a new determination consistent with the correct legal standard.

Occupational DiseaseLung CancerAsbestos ExposureSilica ExposureWorkers' Compensation Board AppealAppellate Division ReviewDate of Disablement DisputeEmployer's LiabilityCarrier's LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law Section 44
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murphy v. Olean Tile Co.

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's silicosis. The claimant, exposed to silica dust from 1927-1947, stopped work in April 1956 due to the condition. The appellants argued disablement wasn't within two years of last exposure under section 44-a. Initially, a Referee awarded compensation, setting the disablement date as April 6, 1956, which the Board later affirmed after further evidence of exposure in the last four weeks of employment. The court affirmed the decision, finding substantial evidence of exposure and applying a retroactive amendment to section 44-a that deems claims compensable if disablement occurs during continued employment or two years thereafter when an employee is transferred from injurious to non-injurious exposure.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseWorkmen's Compensation LawSection 44-aInjurious ExposureDisablementRetroactive ApplicationAppellate ReviewMedical TestimonyEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Petty v. Dresser Industries

The decedent, a chipper, developed silicosis/pneumoconiosis due to workplace silica exposure and died in May 1997. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded death benefits to his widow, attributing the death to an occupational disease and ruling that the Special Funds Conservation Committee would reimburse the employer after a 260-week waiting period starting May 14, 1997. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending that under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (ee), reimbursement should commence after 104 weeks from July 15, 1993, the date of diagnosis, as this date preceded August 1, 1994. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the 260-week period, noting that no date of disablement was established during the decedent's lifetime, thus making the date of death the trigger for the waiting period, which fell after August 1, 1994. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its interpretation that the date of death constitutes the date of disablement when no claim for benefits was made during the decedent’s life, leading to the 260-week waiting period.

SilicosisPneumoconiosisOccupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationSpecial FundsReimbursementDate of DisablementDate of DeathWaiting PeriodAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-8 of 8 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