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

Feinberg v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

The court addressed a motion for summary judgment by defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company in an asbestos personal injury action. Plaintiff claims decedent Arlene Feinberg contracted mesothelioma from exposure to Colgate's talc product. Colgate argued the action was untimely under CPLR 214-c (2) and that plaintiffs failed to prove causation or exclude other causes. The court denied Colgate's motion, finding issues of fact regarding the statute of limitations, specifically whether Mrs. Feinberg's symptoms prior to February 28, 2008, were "isolated or inconsequential" enough to not trigger the statute. The court also rejected Colgate's arguments on burden of proof for causation and exclusion of other causes, and upheld prior rulings regarding the admissibility of plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation.

AsbestosMesotheliomaTalcSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214-cCausationToxic TortProduct LiabilityMedical Diagnosis
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. ADJ9 088743
Regular
Jan 26, 2016

LEO ESTRELLA vs. MILWAUKEE BREWERS, SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS, ACE USA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Leo Estrella's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that his cumulative injury claim against the Milwaukee Brewers and San Francisco Giants was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The Board found that applicant knew or should have known of his right to file a claim more than one year prior to filing, precluding application of the five-year "new and further disability" statute. Applicant's contention that the statute of limitations was tolled due to lack of knowledge was rejected, as the evidence indicated he was aware of the industrial causation of his injuries by 2009. One commissioner dissented, arguing the date of injury should be 2013 and that defendants failed to prove applicant's knowledge of his rights or the statute of limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Labor Code Section 5410New and Further DisabilityTollingDate of InjuryIndustrial CausationProfessional Baseball Player
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McHeffey v. International Talc Co.

A claimant with pneumoconiosis, stemming from two decades of talc dust exposure with his former employer, was denied disability benefits by the board. The board cited that his disability was employment-related and his workers' compensation claim was controverted on multiple grounds, not solely causation. The court affirmed the board's decision regarding the claimant's disqualification from benefits due to the disability's causal link to employment. However, it clarified that under Workmen's Compensation Law § 206(2), disability benefits are payable even when a workers' compensation claim is controverted on additional grounds besides causation, emphasizing the statute's purpose to alleviate economic hardship during litigation of causation.

PneumoconiosisOccupational DiseaseDisability BenefitsCausal RelationStatutory InterpretationEconomic HardshipUnemployment BenefitsLien RightsBoard Decision AppealEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1992

Mark v. Eshkar

This case involves a plaintiff, owner of Manhattan premises, and defendants Eshkar and Jules Schapiro, whose adjacent building shared a party wall. Following rehabilitation work on Schapiro's building in 1984, minor damage to the party wall occurred. In 1989, more significant structural cracks appeared, attributed to allegedly faulty foundation work supervised by Eshkar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim against Eshkar, deeming it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which it held commenced in 1985 upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the cause of action accrued in 1989 when the structural cracks became visible, aligning with the principle that the statute of limitations for damages resulting from loss of lateral support begins when such damages are sustained and become apparent.

Statute of LimitationsNegligenceReal PropertyParty WallConstruction DefectsAccrual of Cause of ActionLatent DefectsStructural DamageNew York LawAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. ADJ10353716
Regular
Feb 06, 2023

JUANA LEYVA vs. MILLENEUM BILTMORE HOTEL, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued the applicant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, as she knew or should have known her condition was work-related earlier. However, the Board adopted the judge's reasoning that the applicant did not have sufficient knowledge of industrial causation until receiving a recent medical opinion. Therefore, the statute of limitations had not yet begun to run.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardStatute of LimitationsCumulative InjuryIndustrial CausationMedical AdviceReasonable DiligencePQMETreating DoctorsJudicial Notice
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashmead v. Groper

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court (Sullivan County), which dismissed their legal malpractice action against an attorney as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had initially retained the defendant attorney in 1981 for a workers' compensation claim, which closed in 1984 after an award for partial disability. In 1995, the plaintiff sued the attorney for negligence regarding the calculation of the average weekly wage. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's argument of continuous representation, stating that a professional's failure to act does not constitute such. The court found that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the latest, six years after the workers' compensation case closed in May 1984.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAttorney NegligenceAppellate ReviewDismissalAffirmationNew York LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. ADJ6500027
Regular
Jun 22, 2009

MARK SCOTT vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a finding that applicant Mark Scott sustained an industrial injury to his left knee. The Board found that the medical evidence presented, specifically operative reports, lacked any causation analysis and therefore did not substantially support the finding of industrial injury. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial level for further development of the medical record concerning causation. The Board also deferred ruling on the statute of limitations defense pending this further development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSouthern California EdisonMark ScottAOE/COEStatute of LimitationsContinuous TraumaCumulative InjuryLabor Code Section 5405Reynolds v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Statute of Limitations Tolling
References
23
Case No. ADJ7470534
Regular
Jan 25, 2012

MICHAEL PAOLOZZI vs. CITY OF TORRANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a police officer's claim for industrial injuries against the City of Torrance. The prior decision prematurely ruled on specific injuries to the back, circulatory system, hearing, and skin. Both parties sought reconsideration, with the applicant arguing the statute of limitations was the sole issue and the defendant arguing the claim was time-barred. The Board rescinded the prior decision, returning the case to trial level to first determine the statute of limitations, before addressing any injury causation.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetitions for ReconsiderationFindings of Factindustrial injurystatute of limitationsLabor Code section 5405Labor Code section 5412Labor Code section 3213.2circulatory systemhearing
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,631 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