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

Glod v. Ashland Chemical Co.

James Glod, and derivatively Lisa Glod, sued Eastman Chemical Products, Inc. and other defendants for injuries, specifically asthma, allegedly caused by exposure to toxic chemicals at Glod's workplace between 1982 and 1985. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on failure to state a cause of action and Statute of Limitations. The court granted dismissal of the seventh cause of action (unspecified statutory violations) and the first and second causes of action (strict liability and negligence) under CPLR 214-c, finding them time-barred. All other causes of action survived dismissal, and the plaintiffs' cross-motions to amend the complaint and declare CPLR 214-c unconstitutional were denied.

Toxic tortStatute of limitationsCPLR 214-cChemical exposureAsthmaPersonal injuryStrict liabilityNegligenceBreach of contractBreach of warranty
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
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. ADJ1168599
Regular
May 29, 2009

STANLEY ANGEL (Deceased) WANDA ANGEL (Widow) vs. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, CRAWFORD & COMPANY, TRAVELERS

This case concerns a widow's petition for reconsideration of a denial of death benefits for her husband, Stanley Angel, who died of multiple myeloma. The Appeals Board previously ruled that there was insufficient substantial medical evidence to establish that Mr. Angel's exposure to toxic chemicals during his employment with Dow Chemical Company caused his illness. The widow argued the Board erred in disregarding the opinion of her Qualified Medical Evaluator, Dr. Harrison, and misapplied the burden of proof. However, the Board affirmed its prior decision, finding Dr. Harrison's revised opinion lacked a solid basis and was inconsistent with other evidence regarding the extent and duration of exposure.

Multiple MyelomaIndustrial InjuryToxic Chemical ExposureQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical CausationLatency PeriodSubstantial Medical EvidenceBurden of ProofReconsiderationOccupational Medicine
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zito v. Occidental Chemical Corp.

Plaintiff, a laborer employed by International Technology Corporation (ITC), suffered injuries after slipping on grease at a landfill owned by Occidental Chemical Corporation (Occidental) while reporting for work. The plaintiff initiated an action against Occidental, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Occidental, in turn, filed a third-party action against ITC for contractual indemnification and insurance. The Supreme Court denied ITC's motion for summary judgment and granted Occidental's cross-motion, a decision that was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The appellate court clarified that the accident site constituted a 'worksite' under the Labor Law and that the agreement obligating ITC to procure insurance for Occidental was enforceable despite General Obligations Law § 5-322.1.

Labor Law ViolationWorksite DefinitionSlip and Fall InjuryContractual IndemnificationThird-Party LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionGeneral Obligations LawInsurance Coverage DisputeAppellate AffirmationConstruction Site Accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1997

Giambalvo v. Chemical Bank

The plaintiff fell from a ladder while changing a light bulb in premises leased by Chemical Bank and subsequently sued Chemical Bank, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 due to a defective ladder. A jury initially found Chemical Bank partly at fault. However, on appeal, the court reversed the judgment, concluding that there was no evidence Chemical Bank supervised or controlled the plaintiff's work, nor did it own the allegedly defective ladder. Consequently, Chemical Bank could not be held liable under Labor Law § 200, leading to the dismissal of both the complaint and the third-party complaint.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor LawOwner LiabilityWorkplace SafetySupervision and ControlDefective LadderThird-Party ComplaintIndemnificationAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Short v. Durez Division-Hooker Chemicals & Plastic Corp.

Terry Short, an employee of Davis Refrigeration Company, sustained injuries while climbing a ladder at a plant owned by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC). He and his wife initiated an action against OCC, asserting a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was precluded by Workers’ Compensation Law and that Short was engaged in routine maintenance. Plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Workers’ Compensation Law, citing factual disputes regarding special employment status. However, the court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, as there was an issue of fact concerning whether Short's activity constituted routine maintenance or protected repair work. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order, denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and reinstating it, while also denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor Law 240(1)Workers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment MotionSpecial Employment DoctrineRoutine Maintenance ExceptionConstruction WorkLadder AccidentFactual DisputeAppellate ReviewOrder Modification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosemond v. Harshaw Chemical Co.

The plaintiffs appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Harshaw Chemical Company and Bartholomew Company, Inc. in an action to recover damages for wrongful death. The decedent, an employee of Astro-Electro, Inc., died after falling into a vat of corrosive acid while removing fallen parts, alleging defendants' negligent design of a horizontal drive system caused the parts to fall. The defendants argued their negligence was not a proximate cause, as parts frequently fell, and Astro's failure to provide safety precautions constituted an intervening cause. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the accident would have occurred regardless of the defendants' alleged negligence and that Astro's egregious negligence served as an intervening cause, thereby absolving the defendants of liability.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentProximate CauseIntervening CauseNegligenceProduct LiabilityWorkplace AccidentAppellate ReviewForeseeabilityCausation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York v. PVS Chemicals, Inc.

The State of New York initiated a lawsuit against PVS Chemicals, Inc., alleging violations of environmental statutes including the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as state environmental laws and public nuisance, stemming from acidic material discharges. Magistrate Judge Heckman recommended converting defendant's dismissal motion to one for summary judgment, proposing partial grants and denials. District Judge Arcara largely adopted these recommendations, granting summary judgment to limit civil penalties for certain SPDES permit violations and dismissing Claim Two, and partially dismissing claims related to non-contact cooling water. The court also denied defendant's request to stay discovery and approved plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, referring the case back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

Environmental LawClean Water ActResource Conservation and Recovery ActSPDES PermitIndustrial WastewaterGroundwater ContaminationSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissSupplemental JurisdictionCivil Penalties
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Motors Corp. v. Gibson Chemical & Oil Corp.

Plaintiff General Motors Corp. ("GM") obtained a preliminary injunction against defendants Roth and Gibson Chemical & Oil Corp. for trademark infringement related to "Dexron" automatic transmission fluid. Subsequently, defendants moved the court to permit them to repackage and sell the impounded, allegedly infringing goods, or alternatively, to have GM remove the goods from their warehouse, citing health and safety hazards. GM opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion seeking an order holding defendants in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction by distributing a brochure displaying the "Dexron" mark at a trade show. The Court denied defendants' motions to repackage, sell, or remove the goods. While finding defendants technically in civil contempt for the brochure distribution, the Court decided against immediate sanctions, noting the violation appeared inadvertent and GM had not yet demonstrated actual damages, but ordered defendants to provide an accounting and allowed GM to present proof of damages at trial.

Trademark InfringementPreliminary InjunctionContempt of CourtCivil ContemptRepackaging of GoodsImpoundment OrderAdvertising ViolationCompensatory DamagesSanctionsTrade Show Brochure
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 218 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