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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glod v. Ashland Chemical Co.

James Glod, and derivatively Lisa Glod, sued Eastman Chemical Products, Inc. and other defendants for injuries, specifically asthma, allegedly caused by exposure to toxic chemicals at Glod's workplace between 1982 and 1985. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on failure to state a cause of action and Statute of Limitations. The court granted dismissal of the seventh cause of action (unspecified statutory violations) and the first and second causes of action (strict liability and negligence) under CPLR 214-c, finding them time-barred. All other causes of action survived dismissal, and the plaintiffs' cross-motions to amend the complaint and declare CPLR 214-c unconstitutional were denied.

Toxic tortStatute of limitationsCPLR 214-cChemical exposureAsthmaPersonal injuryStrict liabilityNegligenceBreach of contractBreach of warranty
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. ADJ1168599 (WCK 0050522)
Regular
Mar 05, 2009

STANLEY ANGEL (Deceased) WANDA ANGEL (Widow) vs. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, CRAWFORD & COMPANY, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior finding that Stanley Angel's death from multiple myeloma was industrially caused by chemical exposure at Dow Chemical Company. The Board found insufficient evidence of sufficient exposure levels and duration to establish industrial causation. Medical opinions were split, but the Board found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for a causal connection. Consequently, the applicant received no further benefits.

Multiple MyelomaToxic Chemical ExposureIndustrial CausationQualified Medical EvaluatorLatency PeriodOrganic SolventsCumulative TraumaIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ1168599
Regular
May 29, 2009

STANLEY ANGEL (Deceased) WANDA ANGEL (Widow) vs. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, CRAWFORD & COMPANY, TRAVELERS

This case concerns a widow's petition for reconsideration of a denial of death benefits for her husband, Stanley Angel, who died of multiple myeloma. The Appeals Board previously ruled that there was insufficient substantial medical evidence to establish that Mr. Angel's exposure to toxic chemicals during his employment with Dow Chemical Company caused his illness. The widow argued the Board erred in disregarding the opinion of her Qualified Medical Evaluator, Dr. Harrison, and misapplied the burden of proof. However, the Board affirmed its prior decision, finding Dr. Harrison's revised opinion lacked a solid basis and was inconsistent with other evidence regarding the extent and duration of exposure.

Multiple MyelomaIndustrial InjuryToxic Chemical ExposureQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical CausationLatency PeriodSubstantial Medical EvidenceBurden of ProofReconsiderationOccupational Medicine
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1988

Billsborrow v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A.

This opinion addresses motions for summary judgment by Dow Chemical, U.S.A., and Pride Solvent Chemical Company, Inc., in a negligence and strict products liability action. Plaintiff Nancy Ann Billsborrow, as administratrix, sued after her husband, Christopher Billsborrow, died from exposure to Neu-Tri solvent. Defendants argued they fulfilled their duty to warn through the "responsible intermediary" and "knowledgeable user" doctrines. The court declined to extend the responsible intermediary doctrine to bulk chemical sales in this context, citing significant distinctions from pharmaceutical cases. Furthermore, it found questions of fact regarding the adequacy of warnings and Pride's knowledge. The court also rejected the knowledgeable user doctrine's application, stating it does not apply to unskilled workers and an employer's knowledge cannot be imputed to an employee. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment were denied.

products liabilitynegligencesummary judgmentduty to warnresponsible intermediary doctrineknowledgeable user doctrinebulk chemical salestrichloroethylene exposurefatal injurychemical hazards
References
22
Case No. 82-0021
Regular Panel Decision

Fraticelli v. Dow Chemical Co.

The case involves three civilian employees (Fraticelli, Oshita, Takatsuki) of the University of Hawaii who sued manufacturers of Agent Orange, the US, and the University's former Regents, alleging harm from exposure to Agent Orange in 1966-67. The plaintiffs developed various illnesses, which they attributed to Agent Orange exposure. The court denied class certification and found that claims against the chemical companies and former Regents were barred by Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations and, for the Regents, by the receipt of workers' compensation. Crucially, the court found no admissible evidence that Agent Orange caused the plaintiffs' illnesses, citing issues with expert testimony and the presence of other risk factors. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Agent OrangeHerbicide ExposureToxic ChemicalsProduct LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationCausation DefenseSummary JudgmentClass Action DenialFederal Tort Claims Act
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glod v. Morrill Press Division of Engraph, Inc.

James and Lisa Glod sued multiple defendants for injuries James sustained from chemical exposure at his workplace, alleging strict products liability, negligence, breach of contract, warranties, and statutory violations. The Supreme Court initially dismissed strict products liability, negligence claims as time-barred and a statutory violation claim for failure to state a cause of action. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating the dismissed causes of action. It determined that CPLR 214-c, concerning the discovery of injury for latent effects of exposure, applied and that the date of discovery was a question of fact for trial. The court also affirmed the constitutionality of CPLR 214-c and that plaintiffs had a reasonable time to commence action under the shortened limitations period.

Chemical exposureOccupational illnessWorkers' compensationStatute of limitationsCPLR 214-cDiscovery ruleLatent effectsProduct liabilityNegligenceStatutory violations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1993

Archer v. IBM Corp.

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied her claim for benefits, which alleged an acquired sensitivity to chemicals from exposure at IBM Corporation. The Board determined there was insufficient evidence of a causally related occupational disease. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing expert testimony from an IBM physician, Franklin Aldrich, who found no causal link between the claimant's dermatitis and workplace chemicals, despite conflicting testimony from other experts.

Occupational DiseaseChemical SensitivityWorkers' Compensation AppealCausationDermatitisExpert Medical TestimonySufficiency of Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tinelli v. Ken Duncan, Ltd.

The decedent, a photographic darkroom technician for 30 years, developed cancer of the pancreas, gallbladder, and liver, dying at age 51. An Administrative Law Judge initially denied workers' compensation benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the cancer was an occupational disease caused by prolonged exposure to darkroom chemicals. The employer and insurance carrier appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of causation and exposure. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence from medical experts who linked the decedent's cancer to chemical exposure and noting that such chemicals were commonly used in photographic development.

Occupational DiseaseCancerChemical ExposureDarkroom TechnicianCausationExpert TestimonyAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawMedical OpinionIndustrial Hazard
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 688 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