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 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. 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

Haussecker v. Childs

Joseph Haussecker, a former sandblaster, developed respiratory problems in 1967 and suspected silicosis, filing a worker's compensation claim in 1968, which was dismissed in 1972 due to lack of medical diagnosis. He was finally diagnosed with silicosis in April 1990. The Hausseckers then contacted attorney Jerry Childs for a product liability suit, but he advised them that the statute of limitations had run. They subsequently filed a legal malpractice suit against Childs, alleging a fact question regarding the discovery rule's application to the statute of limitations for their silicosis claim. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Childs, finding a fact question exists as to when Haussecker, through reasonable diligence, should have discovered the permanent nature of his occupational disease.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleSilicosisOccupational DiseaseLatent Onset DiseaseSummary JudgmentNegligenceAttorney DutyMedical Diagnosis
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bishop v. St. Joe Minerals

The claimant, who worked in lead mines for St. Joe Minerals, filed a workers’ compensation claim in 1943 for silicosis, initially found to be a partial disability. After returning to work, his treating physician reported total disablement in 1978, prompting the claimant to reopen his silicosis claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined the claim was timely, refused to shift liability to the Special Fund, and found the claimant became permanently disabled from silicosis on September 13, 1976. The employer appealed, contending the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that liability should have been shifted to the Special Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that the Board's determination of the disablement date was a factual question supported by substantial evidence and that the seven-year limitation period commenced from this date, making the reopening timely and precluding the shifting of liability.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseTotal DisabilityPartial DisabilityReopened CasesStatute of LimitationsDate of DisablementSpecial FundAppellate ReviewMedical Report
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Asarco Inc. v. Raley

Douglas L. Raley, an employee formerly with ASARCO Inc., was awarded worker's compensation benefits for a disability caused by silicosis, an occupational disease. ASARCO appealed this award, contesting the causal link between Raley's silicosis and his employment, and the sufficiency of medical evidence for permanent disability under T.C.A. § 50-1101. Raley, a fine grinding operator, was exposed to heavy dust containing free respirable silica at ASARCO's mills, with levels sometimes exceeding federal safety standards. Medical testimony from Dr. William K. Swann confirmed silicosis directly resulted from this exposure, causing permanent work restrictions. Dr. William K. Rogers also rated Raley with a thirty percent permanent disability due to pulmonary function loss. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Raley was last injuriously exposed to the disease hazard during his ASARCO employment, fulfilling the statutory requirements for benefits.

Occupational DiseaseSilicosisWorker's CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityPulmonary DysfunctionIndustrial ExposureCausal ConnectionMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Etheredge

In this workmen's compensation appeal, E. A. Ether-edge was awarded damages for silicosis. The insurance carrier appealed the judgment, challenging the validity of the statement of facts approved by a successor judge and the sufficiency of evidence regarding Ether-edge's injurious exposure to silica dust at Trojan Foundries, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling the motion to dismiss the appeal and upholding the jury's findings on injurious exposure and silicosis. The court confirmed that Rule 18, V.R.C.P., allowed the successor judge to approve the statement of facts and found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseWorkmen's CompensationAppellate ProcedureStatement of FactsSuccessor JudgeInjurious ExposureTuberculosisExpert TestimonySufficiency of Evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. ASARCO Inc.

Mr. Smith, an employee, was awarded worker's compensation benefits for total and permanent disability due to silicosis contracted from working in zinc mines. The employer, ASARCO, appealed this decision, arguing a lack of injurious exposure during Mr. Smith's employment with them, insufficient evidence of total disability, and that the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The court found material evidence to support the chancellor's findings that Mr. Smith was last injuriously exposed to silicosis while working for ASARCO, was indeed totally and permanently disabled given his age and limited education, and that his claim was not time-barred as he was not aware of his condition until diagnosed in 1980. Consequently, the chancellor's decree was affirmed.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseWorker's CompensationPermanent DisabilityStatute of LimitationsZinc MiningInjurious ExposureMedical DiagnosisRespiratory IllnessTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wormsley v. Consolidation Coal Co.

Plaintiff Wormsley, a former coal miner, filed a workers' compensation claim against Consolidation Coal Company for occupational diseases including silicosis, emphysema, and bronchitis. He ceased employment on September 29, 1966, due to respiratory issues, initially misdiagnosing his condition as high blood pressure. On July 19, 1967, Dr. Swann diagnosed him with silicosis. The court addressed the defendant's argument that the claim was time-barred, ruling that the statute of limitations commenced only when the plaintiff received a reliable medical diagnosis of his occupational disease. The court determined that Wormsley's conditions were causally linked to his employment and awarded him 75% permanent partial disability and medical expenses.

Occupational diseaseSilicosisEmphysemaBronchitisStatute of LimitationsNotice requirementDate of injuryDisabilityCoal miningMedical diagnosis
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin Bros. Container & Timber Corp. v. Lynch

Mrs. Lynch, a fifty-one-year-old woman, began working for Martin Brothers Container & Timber Products Corporation in 1966 and developed a lung condition diagnosed as emphysema after six years, which she attributed to sawdust exposure at work. After being terminated in 1975, her workmen's compensation claim was initially denied. The Chancellor found her condition was a direct result of employment and pathologically similar to silicosis, awarding 60% permanent partial disability. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, applying criteria from *American Insurance Company v. Ison* to determine if emphysema could be considered an occupational disease "closely related" to silicosis under Sec. 50-1101, T.C.A.

Occupational Disease CompensabilityEmphysema CausationSilicosis AnalogyMedical Expert TestimonyStandard of ReviewLiberal ConstructionTennessee LawDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation ClaimSawdust Exposure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Leveski v. Dic Underhill Joint Venture

The claimant, employed by Die Underhill Joint Venture as a drill runner, developed pneumoconiosis (silicosis) due to his occupation and also suffered from coronary artery disease. He stopped working in December 1975 and applied for workers' compensation benefits for silicosis. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found him totally disabled by his non-work-related coronary condition, rescinding a referee's award, a decision the claimant did not appeal. In August 1979, the claimant sought to reopen his case, but the Board denied this application in February 1980. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial, ruling that the claimant failed to demonstrate a change of condition or present newly discovered evidence as required for reopening a case.

Workers' CompensationSilicosisOccupational DiseaseCoronary Artery DiseaseMedical TreatmentReopening CaseAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionChange of ConditionNewly Discovered Evidence
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 49 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