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. ADJ4034979 (EUR 0039592)
Regular
Mar 10, 2011

BARRY JOHNSON vs. CITY OF ARCATA, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL SONOMA

This case involves a police sergeant claiming industrial prostate cancer due to benzene exposure. Both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration of the initial Findings and Award. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and returned the case for further proceedings due to outstanding issues regarding the date of injury and the compensability of temporary disability. The Board also noted that evidence of benzene exposure appeared to support the presumption of compensability for cancer injuries, shifting the burden to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3212.1prostate cancerpresumption of compensabilitydate of injuryLabor Code section 5412temporary disabilitypermanent disabilitybenzene exposurecarcinogen
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.

This case involves an unnamed plaintiff diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) who sued several defendants, including Mobil Oil Corporation, Island Transportation Corporation, and Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc., alleging occupational exposure to benzene caused his illness. The defendants moved in limine to preclude the plaintiff's expert testimony on medical causation and for summary judgment, arguing the causation theory was unreliable. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied these motions. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff's experts failed to quantify benzene exposure and establish a scientifically reliable causal connection. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.

Medical CausationToxic ExposureBenzeneAcute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML)Expert Testimony AdmissibilityFrye StandardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewOccupational HazardScientific Reliability
References
25
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06136 [243 AD3d 414]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

Lotrean v. 3M Co.

In a product liability case concerning exposure to toxic substances, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order and granted summary judgment to defendants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Rust-Oleum Corporation, and Zep, Inc., thereby dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs, including Marinel Lotrean, failed to establish a prima facie case for causation. Their experts did not adequately demonstrate a causal link between exposure to component solvents in the defendants' products and the plaintiff's medical condition, nor did they provide sufficient evidence that the specific products were contaminated with benzene at levels capable of causing illness. The court found that plaintiffs' assumptions regarding solvent contamination and exposure levels lacked credible evidentiary support, failing to create a question of fact on both general and specific causation.

Products LiabilityToxic ExposureCausation FailureSummary Judgment GrantCarcinogenic SolventsBenzene ContaminationExpert OpinionAppellate ReversalSpecific CausationGeneral Causation
References
4
Case No. ADJ8157891
Regular
Apr 15, 2016

JESSE CASTELLON vs. ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL, ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a finding that pesticide exposure contributed to the applicant's lymphoma, diabetes, and hypertension. The defendant argued the relied-upon medical expert erred by discussing Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma instead of the applicant's diagnosed Hodgkin's Lymphoma. However, the Board found the expert's report sufficiently addressed Hodgkin's Lymphoma and its link to benzene exposure, incorporating the WCJ's reasoning. Therefore, the Board affirmed the original findings and denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factindustrial causationpesticide exposurelymphomadiabeteshypertensionsubstantial medical evidenceDr. Nachman Brautbar
References
1
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. ADJ10685699
Regular
Jan 22, 2019

DAVID CISAR vs. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY

This case involved a fire captain who claimed industrial injury for melanoma and lymphoma, with the latter being the focus of the appeal. While the applicant was presumed compensable for leukemia/lymphoma under Labor Code section 3212.1 due to benzene exposure, the defendant successfully rebutted this presumption. The rebuttal was based on an independent medical evaluator's opinion that the short period between negative diagnostic tests and the cancer's manifestation made an industrial link unreasonable. The Board adopted this reasoning, denying the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrange County Fire AuthorityPermissibly Self-InsuredCorvel CorporationFire CaptainCumulative InjuryMelanomaLymphomaChronic Lymphocytic LeukemiaSmall Lymphocytic Lymphoma
References
2
Case No. ADJ7318651
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

JERRY CHAVEZ, Jr. vs. CITY OF VERNON

This case concerns a police officer diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma who sought workers' compensation benefits under Labor Code section 3212.1's cancer presumption. The applicant presented evidence of industrial exposure to known carcinogens such as diesel exhaust and benzene. The defense failed to rebut the presumption by failing to present evidence that the primary cancer site was identified and that the identified carcinogen was not reasonably linked to the cancer. The Appeals Board affirmed the judge's findings, denying the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of VernonJerry Chavez Jr.Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ruling and Awardcancer presumptionLabor Code section 3212.1industrial exposurecarcinogenic substancesWCJ
References
7
Case No. ADJ6571874, ADJ7967746
Regular
Oct 21, 2013

DARYL BRISTOL vs. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CITY OF SANTA MONICA RISK MANAGEMENT

The Board denied the applicant's reconsideration regarding his claimed cumulative trauma injury of multiple myeloma, agreeing with the WCJ that employment exposure to benzene was insufficient to establish causation. The Board granted the defendant's reconsideration regarding a specific arm/shoulder injury, affirming it was not due to horseplay. However, the Board amended the award for this specific injury to limit temporary disability benefits to August 26, 2008, finding subsequent disability was due to the applicant's non-industrial cancer. All other issues related to the specific injury remain deferred.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaInternal SystemCancerMultiple MyelomaLabor Code Section 3212.1Presumption of Compensable InjurySpecific InjuryRight Arm and ShoulderHorseplay
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 593 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