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. 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

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

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

Claim of Morgan v. Olean City School District

Claimant, a teacher, sought workers' compensation benefits after alleging that exposure to toxic fumes in her classroom caused her to develop respiratory problems and chemical sensitivities. The Workers' Compensation Board denied her claim, concluding she had not developed an occupational disease because her condition was specific to her teaching environment, not the general nature of her employment. However, the appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board had failed to address the claimant's argument regarding a compensable accidental injury, an issue it should have considered. The case was remitted back to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's decision.

Occupational diseasechemical exposurerespiratory problemsaccidental injuryworkers' compensation benefitsboard decisionappealremittedteachertoxic fumes
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Horne v. Barclay Home Products

Claimant, a turner and inspector, developed occupational asthma from toxic polyurethane fumes at work in January 1985. She collapsed and was diagnosed with occupational asthma, preventing her return to work. Initially, a WCLJ found partial disability, but the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this to a total and permanent disability from August 1985 onwards. The employer and its carrier appealed this finding. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's occupational asthma prevented her from earning any wages in suitable work, even in an environmentally pure atmosphere, due to the severity of her condition and sensitivity to common irritants.

Occupational AsthmaPermanent Total DisabilityPartial DisabilityToxic FumesPolyurethane FumesWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceCausally Related DisabilityIndustrial Setting
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lynch v. New York City Housing Authority

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from December 29, 1989, which denied a claimant’s request for death benefits, ruling that the decedent’s death was unrelated to employment. The decedent died from lymphonatoid granulomatosis, and the central issue was the causal link between this disease and the decedent's occupational exposure to toxic chemicals and fumes. The Board considered conflicting expert medical opinions from both the claimant’s and employer’s experts, as well as an impartial specialist. Ultimately, the Board found no causal relationship, and this determination was upheld on appeal, citing that the Board is responsible for weighing conflicting medical evidence, and their resolution was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausationMedical EvidenceExpert OpinionOccupational DiseaseAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceConflicting EvidenceLymphomatoid Granulomatosis
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Turner v. Jaquith Industries, Inc.

The claimant, a machine operator, developed respiratory problems due to toxic fume exposure in 1997 and 2006, leading to diagnoses of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant had no further causally related disability beyond June 8, 2007. This decision was appealed by the claimant. The court reviewed conflicting medical opinions: the claimant's physician attributed total disability to the 2006 exposure, while the carrier's physician and a Special Fund examiner found no ongoing causally related disability, suggesting the condition had stabilized or was linked to other health factors. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, citing the Board's discretion to resolve conflicting medical evidence.

Respiratory ProblemsToxic Fumes ExposureAsthma DiagnosisChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseCausally Related DisabilityConflicting Medical OpinionsWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewMedical CredibilityOccupational Hazard
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Holden v. Central Foundry Co.

The claimant, a 58-year-old foundry worker, developed emphysema after prolonged exposure to toxic fumes at work, leading to his collapse and subsequent partial disability in 1975. Conflicting medical opinions arose regarding the causal link between his occupational environment and the aggravation of a dormant lung condition. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found a causally related occupational disease, a decision later amended to specifically state that his employment aggravated a pre-existing dormant lung disease, causing disability. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the Board did not decide on the preponderance of medical evidence. However, the court found substantial evidence in the record, particularly Dr. Miller's testimony, to support the Board's determination, thus affirming the decision.

Occupational diseaseEmphysemaToxic fumesFoundry workerCausationAggravation of pre-existing conditionMedical evidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewDisability
References
0
Case No. 534443
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of David Dunlap

In October 2019, claimant David Dunlap, an airline pilot, filed for workers' compensation benefits, asserting work-related brain damage and neurological disorders due to toxic fume inhalation. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially disallowed the claim, citing a lack of established causally-related disability. Dunlap's subsequent application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) was denied because he failed to fully complete question 13 of form RB-89, specifically omitting identification of a toxicologist's report. The Board also denied his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed both Board decisions, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for review due to non-compliance with its regulations.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ReviewRegulatory ComplianceApplication DenialBoard DiscretionAppellate DivisionToxic Fume InhalationCausally-Related DisabilityForm RB-89Medical Evidence
References
9
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
Showing 1-10 of 124 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