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

Claim of Estrada v. Peepels Mechanical Corp.

The claimant's case was established for occupational disease resulting in bilateral hearing loss. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined the date of disablement and, after initial discharge, reinstated the State Insurance Fund (Fund) to produce an apportionment report between occupational disease and traumatic hearing loss. The Fund appealed this decision. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently found the Fund was not the proper party as it did not cover the employer on the date of disablement and reversed the order for the apportionment report. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier then appealed the Board's decision. The higher court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that a claim for traumatic hearing loss was never formally made or pending before the Board.

Occupational DiseaseBilateral Hearing LossApportionmentDate of DisablementWorkers' Compensation CarrierState Insurance FundBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewTraumatic Hearing LossWCLJ Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ornstein v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case addresses the viability of claims for emotional and psychological injury, specifically AIDS phobia and post-traumatic stress disorder, following an HIV exposure. The plaintiff, a nurse, was accidentally pricked by a contaminated needle and subsequently developed severe emotional distress. The Supreme Court had allowed her claims for post-traumatic stress disorder to extend beyond the established six-month limitation for AIDS phobia. However, this appellate court reversed that decision, ruling that all related emotional damages must adhere to the six-month period, based on the scientific consensus regarding the likelihood of HIV infection detection.

AIDS PhobiaHIV ExposureEmotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSix-Month Limitation RuleMedical ConsensusObjective StandardNeedle Stick InjuryWorkers' Compensation Psychiatrist
References
19
Case No. Appeal Nos. 5104, 5105, 5106, 5107, 5108, 5109, 5110, 5111
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2001

Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc.

This case involves an appeal by defendants-appellants from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied their motions for summary judgment in a series of lawsuits concerning asbestos exposure from Worthington pumps. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding sufficient issues of fact to preclude dismissal. Evidence presented included defendant Worthington's own admission of the high prevalence of its pumps on Navy ships, testimony from workers regarding Worthington pumps in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and Worthington's use of asbestos-containing components like gaskets and packing. The court also noted a Worthington manual referencing asbestos and government specifications requiring asbestos use, questioning whether the pumps could be safely operated without asbestos insulation despite Worthington not manufacturing or installing it.

Asbestos ExposureProduct LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty to WarnManufacturer LiabilityAppellate ReviewOccupational ExposureNavy ShipsGasketsPumps
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Valenti v. Penn Plax Plastics

The claimant, exposed to asbestos between 1965 and 1972, developed asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, and lung cancer. His 1995 workers' compensation claim was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board, which found his lung cancer causally related to asbestos exposure occurring before July 1, 1974, thus falling under the 'dust disease' rule requiring total disability for compensation. The claimant appealed, arguing lung cancer is not a dust disease. The appellate court reversed and remitted the decision, clarifying that while lung cancer itself is not a dust disease, the pre-1974 restriction applies if it's causally related to a dust disease like asbestosis. The court noted the Board failed to make a specific finding on this causal link.

asbestos exposurelung cancerasbestosisworkers' compensationdust diseasetotal disabilitypartial disabilitycausationremittalappellate review
References
9
Case No. ADJ8714414
Regular
Feb 20, 2018

ALLEN LEAVELL vs. HOUSTON ROCKETS, TIG INSURANCE COMPANY/FAIRMONT SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, TULSA FAST BREAKERS, COMPSOURCE OKLAHOMA

The applicant, Allen Leavell, sought reconsideration of a prior decision denying California's workers' compensation jurisdiction over his cumulative trauma claim. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding insufficient California-based injury exposure. Applicant's argument that his California games were qualitatively more traumatic was unsupported by medical evidence. The Board affirmed that playing approximately 11% of games in California is insufficient to establish constitutional due process for jurisdiction under the precedent set in *Federal Insurance Co. v. WCAB (Johnson)*.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryLabor Code Section 3600.5Constitutional Due ProcessFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)De MinimisInjurious Exposure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rakowski v. New York State Department of Labor

Claimant (Rakowski) filed multiple workers' compensation claims over the years, alleging various injuries due to poor workplace air quality and formaldehyde exposure. Her initial 1990 claim for symptoms like dizziness and headaches was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board, a decision affirmed on appeal. Subsequent claims in 1998, alleging fibromyalgia and neurological damage, were also disallowed as duplicative. In 2004, she filed another application for lung nodules and post-traumatic stress. The Board again denied these claims, citing previous litigation, speculative connections due to elapsed time, and lack of evidence for a compensable accident. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion and supporting the Board's findings that the claims were fully litigated, duplicative, or speculative without new evidence.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewOccupational DiseaseFormaldehyde ExposureWorkplace EnvironmentPrior LitigationClaim DenialMedical CausationDuplicative ClaimsStatute of Limitations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of D'Errico v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant, a maintenance worker for the New York City Department of Corrections, sought workers' compensation benefits for severe major depressive disorder with psychotic features, post-traumatic stress disorder, and panic disorder, which he attributed to exposure to violent incidents at work. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, concluding he was not exposed to greater work-related stress than similarly situated employees. Claimant appealed both the initial denial (April 20, 2007) and the subsequent denial of reconsideration/full Board review (January 23, 2008), but failed to timely perfect the appeal from the initial decision. Consequently, the court's review was limited to whether the Board abused its discretion in denying reconsideration. Finding no abuse of discretion, as the claimant presented no new evidence or material change in conditions, and the Board had fully considered the issues, the court affirmed the Board's decision.

Mental Health ClaimsDepressive DisorderPTSDPanic DisorderWorkplace StressAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationFull Board ReviewDiscretionary ReviewTimeliness of Appeal
References
20
Case No. LBO 0377371
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

EDUBIJES TORREZ vs. RED HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, CHUBB SERVICES CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Chubb Insurance's petition for reconsideration, affirming the original finding that Edubijes Torrez sustained a cumulative trauma injury (leiomyosarcoma) due to chemical exposure as a groundskeeper. The Board found that despite the provision of protective gear in 1998, the applicant's exposure continued through his last year of employment, making Chubb, the insurer during that period, liable for the $100\%$ permanent disability award. Chubb's argument that exposure ceased in 1998 was rejected due to evidence of ineffective protective gear and continued exposure.

LeiomyosarcomaCumulative traumaLabor Code section 5500.5Injurious exposureRespirator protective gearLatency periodIndustrial chemical exposurePermanent disabilityGroundskeeperRed Hill Country Club
References
3
Case No. ADJ11721215
Regular
Mar 20, 2023

GLEN HODGES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns a firefighter's claim for melanoma under Labor Code section 3212.1, which presumes cancer is industrially caused. While the applicant raised the presumption through evidence of carcinogen exposure, the Appeals Board overturned the initial finding of industrial injury due to melanoma. The Board found the presumption was rebutted by expert medical opinion concluding the applicant's melanoma was not reasonably linked to industrial sun exposure, citing significant childhood sun exposure, tanning bed use, family history, and minimal workplace sun exposure to the affected area. The Board therefore granted reconsideration and amended the decision to exclude melanoma as an industrial injury, though actinic keratosis was still found to be industrially caused.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionrebutted presumptionqualified medical evaluatorindustrial injuryactinic keratosismelanomafirefightercarcinogenInternational Agency for Research on Cancer
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 700 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