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
Jun 04, 2001

Claim of Keeley v. Jamestown City School District

The claimant, a teacher for Jamestown City School District, experienced various symptoms after renovations at the middle school in 1992, attributing them to chemical exposure. After stopping work and seeking medical attention, the School District filed a C-2 form. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding that the claimant failed to prove a causal relationship between the disability and employment. The record showed exposure to carpet adhesives and ventilation issues, but also noted the claimant's intermittent symptoms since 1988 and recurrence with household cleaners. While some medical experts diagnosed toxic peripheral neuropathy, toxic encephalopathy, and multiple chemical sensitivity, and linked them to work exposure, other experts disagreed. The Board weighed these conflicting medical opinions. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that no causal relationship was established.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityChemical ExposureSchool RenovationsToxic Peripheral NeuropathyToxic EncephalopathyMultiple Chemical SensitivityConflicting Medical OpinionsBurden of ProofMedical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Litwack v. Plaza Realty Investors, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by toxic mold in a plaintiff's apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint, and these orders were subsequently affirmed on appeal. The central legal question revolved around whether the defendants' knowledge of a discolored, wet wall and a steam pipe leak constituted sufficient notice of a potential mold hazard. The majority concluded that such knowledge, as a matter of law, did not establish notice of potential mold growth. A dissenting opinion argued that the focus should be on whether defendants had notice of persistent water leaks, from which a hazardous mold condition was foreseeable, citing the plaintiff's repeated complaints and an expert's opinion.

Toxic MoldPersonal InjuryLandlord LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeWater DamageAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessPremises LiabilityEnvironmental Health
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scalone v. Celotex Corp.

Plaintiff George Scalone, a New Jersey resident, brought an action in New York claiming asbestos-related injuries from exposure in New York worksites. Defendants Combustion Engineering, Inc. and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was time-barred by the New York Borrowing Statute (C.P.L.R. § 202). They contended that Scalone's cause of action accrued in New Jersey, where he became ill, and therefore New Jersey's statute of limitations should apply, precluding the New York Toxic Tort Revival Statute (C.P.L.R. § 214-c(2)). The court denied the motions, holding that for the purposes of the Toxic Tort Revival Statute, the place of accrual and place of injury are the same, and both are New York, given the plaintiff's exposure in the state. The court emphasized the remedial purpose of the Toxic Tort Revival Statute and found no clear legislative intent to exclude non-residents exposed in New York, even if they had other potential forums.

Toxic TortAsbestos ExposureStatute of LimitationsBorrowing StatuteToxic Tort Revival StatuteC.P.L.R. § 214-c(2)C.P.L.R. § 202Personal InjuryInterstate LawForum Shopping
References
2
Case No. ADJ6743571, ADJ7493283
Regular
Jun 14, 2013

STEPHEN CARBONARO vs. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY, DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, upholding the consolidation of two cases concerning toxic exposure claims. The Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the consolidation, as required by WCAB Rule 10843. Although the defendant argued it lacked an opportunity to respond to the initial consolidation order, the Board noted their Petition for Removal served as this response. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that consolidation was appropriate due to common issues of fact regarding toxic exposure and would promote judicial efficiency.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ConsolidationWCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10589irreparable harmsignificant prejudiceabuse of discretioncommon issues of factStatute of Limitationstoxic chemical exposure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zecca v. J. Levinsohn & Co.

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision. The Board awarded disability benefits to a claimant due to toxic hepatitis, classified as an occupational disease. The claimant, employed by a novelty manufacturer for six years, was exposed to fumes from lacquers and thinners containing toxic chemicals. Despite conflicting medical testimony, the board relied on the claimant’s medical expert, whose opinion was substantiated by pathological studies and biopsy reports. The court affirmed the finding of an occupational disease, recognizing the direct link between the claimant's chemical exposure and her condition. The decision and award were unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Occupational DiseaseToxic HepatitisChemical ExposureWorkmen's CompensationAppealMedical TestimonyPathological StudiesBiopsyCausationDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. GTE Valeron Corp.

Charles Stevens, a former employee, sued his former employer under New York's Right to Know Law on Toxic Substances (Labor Law art 28). Stevens sought information about his exposure to toxic substances, including cobalt, during his 13 years of employment, but the defendant failed to provide adequate information. Stevens commenced an action seeking civil penalties and an order compelling disclosure, and subsequently died. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Stevens' estate, imposing a $10,000 fine on the defendant for non-compliance. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the Right to Know Law applies to former employees and that federal regulations did not preempt the state law.

Toxic SubstancesRight to Know LawEmployee RightsFormer EmployeesOccupational ExposureSummary JudgmentCivil PenaltiesWorkplace SafetyPreemption DoctrineLabor Law
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04293 [196 AD3d 1041]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2021

Cotter v. Lasco, Inc.

Plaintiff Emmet J. Cotter sued Lasco, Inc. and Leon Smith, III for injuries sustained during his employment, including a slip and fall and exposure to toxic fumes. The defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the order, granting summary judgment to dismiss claims against Leon Smith, III entirely, and dismissing claims against Lasco, Inc. related to toxic fume exposure due to being untimely. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the slip and fall claim against Lasco, Inc., finding that defendants failed to meet their burden to prove Lasco was an out-of-possession landlord and that issues of fact remained regarding notice of the dangerous condition.

Summary JudgmentToxic ExposureSlip and FallWorkers' Compensation LawCorporate Veil PiercingStatute of LimitationsPremises LiabilityOut-of-Possession LandlordErie CountyAppellate Division Fourth Department
References
13
Case No. 13634/93
Regular Panel Decision

Annunziato v. City of New York

This case involves an action by 35 plaintiffs against the City of New York, seeking damages for personal injuries due to alleged exposure to toxic emissions from the Fresh Kills landfill. The defendant challenged 19 of these actions on Statute of Limitations grounds, specifically under CPLR 214-c. The court interpreted the 'discovery of the cause of the injury' to include the identification of the specific toxic substance. The motion to dismiss was ultimately denied for 14 plaintiffs but granted for five named plaintiffs (Brian Pisciotta, Anthony Ferrara, Michael Ferrara, Lori Ann DeForest, and Joshua Solomon) whose actions were deemed time-barred. Additionally, a motion for severance was denied, and a cross-motion to consolidate four actions under index No. 13634/93 was granted.

Statute of LimitationsToxic ExposureLandfill EmissionsPersonal InjuryCPLR 214-cDiscovery RuleProximate CauseEnvironmental LitigationMunicipal LiabilityTimeliness of Action
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Auditore v. City of New York

This case addresses an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim on the City of New York for injuries sustained from 9/11-related toxic exposure. Petitioner sought to serve the notice more than one year and 90 days after accrual. The court grappled with issues of subject matter jurisdiction, the applicable statute of limitations, and federal preemption by the ATSSSA, which grants exclusive federal jurisdiction for 9/11 toxic exposure claims. While acknowledging the City had actual notice and was not prejudiced, the court felt constrained by the precedent set in Matter of Goffredo v City of New York to deny the application, as it was brought beyond the state's one-year-and-90-day limitations period. The opinion also raised questions about whether a notice of claim is even required for ATSSSA-governed claims.

9/11 claimstoxic exposurelate notice of claimsubject matter jurisdictionstatute of limitationsfederal preemptionGeneral Municipal LawATSSSAWorld Trade CenterNew York courts
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. City of New York

The plaintiffs, employees of Grow-Kiewit-Catapano, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Sverdrup & Parcel Consultants, Inc., and the City of New York, alleging injuries from improper air pressure regulation during sewer tunnel construction. They claimed to suffer from "caisson disease," discovered years after their work ended. Sverdrup moved to dismiss, arguing the action was time-barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214[5]). The plaintiffs countered that CPLR 214-c, which allows for discovery-based accrual in cases involving latent injuries from toxic substances, applied. The appellate court reversed the lower court's denial of dismissal, holding that compressed air, despite its potential to cause latent injuries when improperly regulated, does not qualify as a "toxic substance" under CPLR 214-c. Consequently, the action was deemed untimely, leading to the dismissal of the complaint and all cross-claims against both defendants.

Personal InjuryStatute of LimitationsLatent InjuryToxic SubstanceCaisson DiseaseCompressed AirSewer Tunnel ConstructionOccupational DiseaseAppellate ReviewCPLR 214-c
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 78 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