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
Apr 29, 1975

Brewery Workers Pension Fund v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

In an action for a declaratory judgment and for specific performance of a certain agreement, defendants appeal from a judgment and order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 29, 1975, which, *inter alia,* granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Judgment and order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. There are no issues requiring a trial.

Declaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceSummary JudgmentAppealAffirmedQueens CountySupreme CourtContract LawJudgment and OrderAppellate Division
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04322 [240 AD3d 1230]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2025

Skrzynski v. Akebono Brake Corp.

Joseph A. Skrzynski sued Akebono Brake Corporation and Ford Motor Company for personal injuries, specifically mesothelioma, resulting from asbestos exposure from friction products while working at an automobile dealership. The jury found Ford Motor Company liable for failing to warn about the asbestos hazards. On appeal, Ford challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both general and specific causation. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial evidence was legally sufficient to establish both that chrysotile asbestos from automotive brakes can cause peritoneal mesothelioma (general causation) and that plaintiff's exposure levels were sufficient to cause his illness (specific causation). A dissenting justice argued that plaintiff's experts offered insufficient evidence for both general and specific causation, particularly regarding the specific type of asbestos and the quantification of plaintiff's exposure.

Products LiabilityAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaFailure to WarnCausationGeneral CausationSpecific CausationAppellate ReviewJury VerdictExpert Testimony
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drayton v. Hasl

This Article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Public Works dated August 14, 1984, which dismissed the petitioner, Mr. Drayton, from employment as a laborer due to six specifications of misconduct. The court found insufficient evidence to sustain three specifications: refusing assigned duties on September 16, 1983, and being absent without authorization or abusing entitlements on sundry dates. The court determined that hearsay testimony alone was insufficient for the first specification and that attendance records did not support the latter two. However, the court upheld findings that the petitioner threatened his supervisor and was under the influence of alcohol on September 16, 1983, and was frequently late for work. Consequently, the original penalty of dismissal was vacated, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner for the imposition of a new penalty appropriate to the sustained specifications.

MisconductDismissalCPLR Article 78Administrative HearingHearsay EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceVacated PenaltyRemitted for PenaltyPublic WorksNassau County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allison Gammons v. City of New York

This is a dissenting opinion arguing that Labor Law § 27-a (3) (a) (1), the "general duty" clause, is too broad to serve as a predicate for a General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action without citing a specific regulation. The dissent contrasts this general provision with more specific legal duties found in previously cited cases like Gonzalez v Iocovello and Cosgriff v City of New York, which involved Vehicle and Traffic Law or local administrative codes. It emphasizes that plaintiffs should be required to identify specific rules or regulations that were violated, similar to the requirements for Labor Law § 241 (6) claims. The dissenting judge suggests remanding the case to consider the applicability of a specific Occupational Safety and Health Act provision, 29 CFR 1910.23 (c) (1), which the plaintiff also asserted. The order, insofar as appealed from, was affirmed by the majority.

Dissenting OpinionLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawWorkplace SafetyGeneral Duty ClausePredicate for LiabilityPolice Officer InjuryOccupational Safety and Health ActStatutory InterpretationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ10285745
Regular
Jun 17, 2019

MELINDA SANCHEZ vs. MERITAGE HEALTHCARE, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Melinda Sanchez's Petition for Reconsideration because it was "skeletal." The petition failed to meet the legal requirements of Labor Code § 5902 and Appeals Board Rules 10842, 10846, and 10852, which mandate specific details on grounds for reconsideration and evidence relied upon. Specifically, the petition did not clearly state the grounds for reconsideration or cite the record with specificity. Consequently, the WCAB found the petition subject to dismissal and would have denied it on the merits had it not been procedurally deficient.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionLabor Code Section 5902Appeals Board RulesRule 10842Rule 10846Rule 10852SpecificityRecord ReferencesLegal Principles
References
8
Case No. ADJ9244329
Regular
Nov 23, 2016

MIGUEL AMADOR vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Miguel Amador's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal was based on the petition's failure to comply with Labor Code section 5902 and relevant WCAB Rules. Specifically, the petition was inadequate because it did not set forth specific details of the grounds for reconsideration, failed to fairly state all material evidence, and lacked specific references to the record. The WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report, which also would have led to denial on the merits had the procedural defects not resulted in dismissal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalLabor Code 5902Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10842Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10846Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10852Skeletal PetitionUnjust or UnlawfulMaterial Evidence
References
6
Case No. ADJ7673809, ADJ7673752
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

JIM ROBERTS COMPANY vs. PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE

This case involves a laborer seeking workers' compensation for claimed specific and cumulative spinal injuries. The initial finding barred the specific injury claim due to a layoff occurring prior to reporting, with the WCJ deeming the employer's witnesses more credible. Reconsideration was granted by the Appeals Board regarding the cumulative trauma claim due to inconsistent medical opinions, which were deemed not substantial evidence. The Board affirmed the specific injury denial but deferred a decision on the cumulative trauma injury, returning the matter for further medical development.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)reconsiderationFindings of FactOrderlaborerindustrial injurythoracic spinelumbrosacral spinecumulative traumadegenerative changes
References
13
Case No. ADJ3280434 (MF) ADJ6953178
Regular
Dec 07, 2012

WILLIAM RICHARDSON vs. CHECKMATE TRANSPORT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for CASCADE NATIONAL INSURANCE, in liquidation, TONY'S SONS MOVING & STORAGE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns applicant William Richardson's claim for permanent disability due to specific and cumulative industrial injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the finding of total permanent disability stemming from a specific injury in 2004. The WCAB clarified that the presumption of total permanent disability does not preclude apportionment, but found that the applicant's current total permanent disability was solely caused by the specific injury, not the cumulative trauma. Therefore, apportionment to the cumulative injury was denied, and the claim for cumulative trauma was dismissed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCIGASCIFReconsiderationJoint FindingsAwardOrderAdministrative Law JudgeSpecific Industrial InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
2
Case No. ADJ6571874, ADJ7967746
Regular
Oct 21, 2013

DARYL BRISTOL vs. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CITY OF SANTA MONICA RISK MANAGEMENT

The Board denied the applicant's reconsideration regarding his claimed cumulative trauma injury of multiple myeloma, agreeing with the WCJ that employment exposure to benzene was insufficient to establish causation. The Board granted the defendant's reconsideration regarding a specific arm/shoulder injury, affirming it was not due to horseplay. However, the Board amended the award for this specific injury to limit temporary disability benefits to August 26, 2008, finding subsequent disability was due to the applicant's non-industrial cancer. All other issues related to the specific injury remain deferred.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaInternal SystemCancerMultiple MyelomaLabor Code Section 3212.1Presumption of Compensable InjurySpecific InjuryRight Arm and ShoulderHorseplay
References
0
Case No. ADJ10680590, ADJ10680591
Regular
Oct 12, 2017

HYUNMI KIM vs. SHERRY PRECISION DENTAL ART, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was "skeletal" and failed to meet the specific requirements of Labor Code section 5902 and Appeals Board Rules. The petition did not detail the grounds for reconsideration, cite specific evidence, or fairly state all material evidence relative to the disputed findings. Despite the WCAB acknowledging the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE made the order final, the petition's lack of specificity was sufficient grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for failing to comply with procedural requirements for seeking reconsideration.

ADJ10680590ADJ10680591WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionFinal OrderAOE/COELabor Code 5902Rule 10842Rule 10846
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,137 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