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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2013

Claim of DePascale v. Magazine Distributors, Inc.

The claimant applied for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma developed due to exposure to toxic substances at the employer's former nuclear fuel rod facility. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially reversed a WCLJ decision, finding insufficient evidence of a causal link. Later, the Board granted the claimant's request to consider new medical evidence, rescinded the WCLJ’s decision, and remitted the matter for a new determination. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed these Board decisions and the subsequent denial of their request for reconsideration. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals, deeming the Board’s decisions interlocutory and not final, thus not subject to piecemeal review.

Workers' CompensationCancerToxic ExposureCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceInterlocutory AppealAppeal DismissalRemittalBoard ReviewNew York Appellate Division
References
4
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. 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. 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. 2018 NYSlipOp 08059
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2018

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. A.O Smith Water Prods. Co.

This case involves an appeal in the New York City Asbestos Litigation where Mary Juni, as administratrix of Arthur H. Juni, Jr.'s estate, sued Ford Motor Company. Mr. Juni, who died of mesothelioma, was an auto mechanic exposed to asbestos from Ford vehicles. The core issue was whether the evidence sufficiently established that Ford's conduct was a proximate cause of Mr. Juni's injuries, particularly concerning the toxicity of asbestos in friction products after being subjected to high temperatures during manufacturing and use. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, finding the evidence insufficient to establish proximate causation under existing legal standards, specifically a missing link in the proof regarding the toxicity of the altered asbestos. Concurring opinions further elaborated on the failure to establish a connection between Ford's products and the decedent's exposure or the general causation related to altered chrysotile asbestos. A dissenting opinion argued that the jury's verdict, finding Ford 49% liable, was supported by sufficient evidence and not 'utterly irrational,' highlighting the evidence of Mr. Juni's exposure to asbestos-laden dust from Ford vehicle parts and Ford's internal recognition of asbestos dangers.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaProximate CauseProduct LiabilityToxicologyFriction ProductsChrysotile AsbestosExpert TestimonyJury VerdictAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whitney v. Quaker Chemical Corp.

The Supreme Court erred by not granting Quaker Chemical Corporation's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Plaintiff Gaylord Whitney sought damages for personal injuries due to toxic substance exposure from the defendant's products. The plaintiff experienced difficulty breathing and was diagnosed with bronchitis and chemical exposure between August and November 1989, directly linked to workplace fumes. An emergency room doctor confirmed the chemical exposure, leading Whitney to file an Occupational Injury and Illness Report and a workers’ compensation claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board later determined that an injury occurred on August 17, 1989, due to workplace exposure. According to CPLR 214-c (2), a three-year statute of limitations applies from the date of injury discovery. Since Whitney was aware of his injury by late 1989, and the action was not commenced until October 29, 1993, the court found the action to be untimely. Justices Fallon and Callahan dissented from the majority decision.

Time-barredStatute of LimitationsToxic ExposurePersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationDiscovery RuleOccupational InjuryChemical ExposureBronchitisSummary Judgment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kilcer v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Joseph Kilcer, a volunteer firefighter and former employee at a hazardous waste site, suffered a toxic brain injury. He filed two workers' compensation claims: one against Columbia County Cause and Origin Team (CCCOT) for carbon monoxide exposure at a fire scene, and another against his employer (third-party defendant) for chemical exposure at the remediation site. The Workers’ Compensation Board found a compensable injury against CCCOT, ruling the injury was solely caused by the fire scene exposure. Kilcer and his wife subsequently filed a tort action against Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Environmental Resources Management, Inc., and Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc., alleging his brain injury was due to chemical exposure at the remediation site. Defendants and the third-party defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing judicial estoppel. The Supreme Court denied these motions, but on appeal, the court reversed this decision. The appellate court applied the doctrine of judicial estoppel, finding Kilcer was barred from asserting an inconsistent position in the tort action regarding the cause of his injury, having previously maintained in the workers' compensation proceeding that the fire scene was the sole cause. Consequently, the complaint and third-party complaint were dismissed.

Judicial EstoppelInconsistent PositionsWorkers' Compensation ClaimToxic Brain InjuryCarbon Monoxide PoisoningHazardous Waste Remediation SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewVolunteer Firefighter BenefitsCausation
References
7
Case No. ADJ8218969
Regular
Feb 05, 2015

JOSE CARRILLO (Deceased) ELVIRA CARRILLO (Widow) vs. ESTERLINE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ARCH INSURANCE, Administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a taken nothing order concerning the death claim of Jose Carrillo, who died of renal cell carcinoma. The initial decision found the widow failed to prove her husband's cancer was industrially caused by toxic exposure during his employment. The Board found the Qualified Medical Evaluator's opinion equivocal and the record insufficient to determine the extent of the decedent's exposure to carcinogens. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial judge for further development of the record regarding chemical exposure and a new determination of industrial causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElvira CarrilloJose CarrilloEsterline Technologies CorporationArch InsuranceESISADJ8218969Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ordertaken nothing order
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 615 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