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. 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 Later, the Board granted the claimant's request to consider new medical evidence, rescinded the WCLJ’s decision, and remitted the matter for a new determination.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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1998

Claim of Gardner v. Structure Tone of NY, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits, alleging asbestosis due to asbestos exposure during employment as an elevator operator at a construction site. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant partially disabled by asbestosis, an occupational disease, and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, primarily disputing the claimant's asbestos exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision after finding sufficient evidence of exposure and asbestosis. On further appeal, the employer argued that asbestosis was not inherent to an elevator operator's job, but the appellate court declined to consider this issue as it was not raised in the administrative appeal to the Board. The court also noted the employer abandoned the exposure issue by not raising it on the current appeal, thus affirming the Board's decision.

AsbestosisOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsElevator OperatorAppealAdministrative AppealJudicial ReviewPreservation of IssueWCLJ Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Pace v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp.

Raymond Balcerzak, an electrician, developed lung cancer and passed away, allegedly due to asbestos exposure during his nearly 50-year career. His lawsuit against various manufacturers, alleging product liability for his injuries, was removed to federal court. Several defendants moved for summary judgment, contending a lack of evidence connecting their specific products to Balcerzak's asbestos exposure. The Court granted summary judgment for Buffalo, Gardner Denver, Byron Jackson, Warren, and Square D, finding insufficient product identification or specific timing/location of exposure. However, the motion for summary judgment by Allen-Bradley was denied, as genuine issues of material fact remained regarding Balcerzak's exposure to asbestos from their arc chutes and contactor insulation.

Asbestos ExposureLung CancerWrongful DeathProducts LiabilitySummary JudgmentFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)Circumstantial EvidenceProduct IdentificationMaritime LawNew York Law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murphy v. Olean Tile Co.

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's silicosis. The claimant, exposed to silica dust from 1927-1947, stopped work in April 1956 due to the condition. The appellants argued disablement wasn't within two years of last exposure under section 44-a. Initially, a Referee awarded compensation, setting the disablement date as April 6, 1956, which the Board later affirmed after further evidence of exposure in the last four weeks of employment. The court affirmed the decision, finding substantial evidence of exposure and applying a retroactive amendment to section 44-a that deems claims compensable if disablement occurs during continued employment or two years thereafter when an employee is transferred from injurious to non-injurious exposure.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseWorkmen's Compensation LawSection 44-aInjurious ExposureDisablementRetroactive ApplicationAppellate ReviewMedical TestimonyEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. 535458
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2024

Matter of Djanuzakov v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

Claimant, a bus driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits due to work-related stress and psychological injuries stemming from COVID-19 exposure, coworker illnesses and deaths, and workplace conditions. His treating clinical psychologist diagnosed major depressive and anxiety disorder, deeming him temporarily totally disabled. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, finding his work-related stress no greater than that experienced by other similar workers during the pandemic, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, citing Matter of Anderson v City of Yonkers, and ruled that the Board must apply the same evidentiary standard for psychological injuries from COVID-19 exposure as it does for physical injuries. The case has been remitted to the Board to determine whether the claimant demonstrated specific or elevated risk of COVID-19 exposure in his work environment and a causal connection between the exposure and his alleged injury.

COVID-19Psychological InjuryWorkers' CompensationStress ClaimCausal ConnectionDisparate BurdenAppellate ReviewRemandNew York LawMental Health
References
1
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 592 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