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 Petermann v. Consolidated Edison

The claimant, who retired at age 66, sought workers' compensation benefits for work-related asbestosis three years post-retirement. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market, citing his testimony that retirement was not medically advised and the absence of evidence of incapacitation at the time of retirement. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The court differentiated the case from prior precedents and rejected the claimant's argument that the Board overemphasized the lack of medical incapacitation, noting his delay in seeking medical treatment for breathing difficulties.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketAsbestosisRetirement BenefitsMedical IncapacitationAppellate AffirmationSubstantial EvidenceBoard RulingMedical Treatment Delay
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of O'Dell v. Consolidated Edison

Claimant underwent lung surgery in 1995 and retired from Consolidated Edison in November 1996, citing breathing difficulties. In October 1999, he was diagnosed with work-related pulmonary asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found his disability work-related and his retirement causally linked. However, the full Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, ruling his retirement was not due to his causally related disability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that claimant's retirement was voluntary, based on his retirement letter and exit interview notes that made no mention of health issues.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityAsbestosisVoluntary RetirementCausationMedical EvidenceLabor Market WithdrawalAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLung Disease
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dando v. Binghamton Board of Education

A mathematics teacher, employed for over 30 years, developed debilitating allergy symptoms (headaches, dizziness, breathing difficulties) after construction began at Binghamton Central High School in 1980. Her condition worsened significantly in September 1981 after being assigned to a new, still-under-construction wing, forcing her to cease work. She filed for workers' compensation benefits, claiming a causally related disability due to hydrocarbon exposure. Conflicting medical testimonies were presented; Dr. James Miller supported the claimant, while Dr. Mayer Schwartz found the link between her illness and work environment tenuous. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim, ruling she did not suffer from an occupational disease, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal, citing that the ailment was a hazard of the specific building, not a distinctive feature of the teaching profession.

occupational diseaseallergieschemical exposureschool environmentworkers' compensation benefitsmedical testimonycausally related disabilityconstruction fumesdustteaching profession
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04342 [151 AD3d 1154]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2017

Claim of Pereira-Jersey v. Rockland Community College

Renee Pereira-Jersey, a purchasing agent, filed for workers' compensation benefits in February 2008 due to conditions like breathing difficulties and headaches resulting from workplace mold exposure. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established a work-related injury, later amending the claim to include a consequential cognitive adjustment disorder and awarding reduced earnings for a three-day work week, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer, Rockland Community College, repeatedly challenged further reduced earnings awards. However, the WCLJ and Board found substantial evidence supporting claimant's causally-related disability preventing full-time work. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its resolution of conflicting medical evidence and finding no abuse of discretion in the Board not considering an issue not raised before the WCLJ.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsMold Exposure InjuryReduced EarningsCognitive ImpairmentOccupational AsthmaChronic SinusitisToxic EncephalopathyAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
8
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

Nugent v. Rogosin Institute

Peggy Nugent, a former head nurse at Rogosin Institute, Inc.'s Kidney Center, sued her employer for wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and New York City Administrative Code (NYCAC). Nugent claimed she developed allergic asthma due to glutaraldehyde, a chemical used in the workplace, leading to her termination. After experiencing severe breathing problems, taking leave, and having her request for an office relocation denied, she was fired in February 1997. Rogosin moved for summary judgment, arguing Nugent's asthma was not a 'qualifying disability' under the ADA because it only prevented her from working at their specific facility, not a broad range of jobs, and did not substantially limit her ability to breathe outside the workplace. The court, citing established precedents, agreed that her condition did not meet the ADA's definition of a qualifying disability. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims.

ADAEmployment DiscriminationDisability RightsAllergic AsthmaWorkplace AccommodationSummary JudgmentWrongful TerminationGlutaraldehyde ExposureOccupational HealthNew York Human Rights Law
References
12
Case No. ADJ2356422 (VNO 0547491)
Regular
Dec 17, 2009

JENNY JONSSON vs. MARCELO POLANCO, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the matter for further development of the medical record due to insufficient evidence supporting the prior award's findings regarding sleep difficulties and permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryHead/Brain InjuryLeft Lower ExtremitySleep DifficultiesPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentMedical Treatment
References
5
Case No. ADJ777354
Regular
Jul 12, 2012

WILLIAM SHIELDS vs. J.G.'S KITCHEN CONCEPTS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration. The lien claimant failed to appear at a hearing and their subsequent petition was unverified and lacked any legal argument. The Board found that the lien claimant's stated difficulties in securing representation do not constitute excusable neglect or good cause for their non-appearance. Therefore, the dismissal of the lien was upheld.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissUnverified PleadingVerification DefectGood CauseExcusable NeglectBusiness PracticesHearing Representatives
References
1
Case No. ADJ7693391
Regular
Jun 13, 2013

ANA RODRIGUEZ vs. AMERICAN APPAREL, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, upholding the dismissal of a lien for failure to pay the activation fee. The Board found the petitioner's representative's arguments, including claims of "technical difficulties," to be unsubstantiated and a misrepresentation. The Board also admonished the defendant for submitting unnecessary documents. Finally, the Board reiterated its lack of jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of statutory requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationHearing RepresentativeSanctionsLien Activation FeeEAMSConstitutionality of StatuteAdministrative AgenciesCourt of AppealsCalifornia Supreme Court
References
1
Case No. ADJ11008028
Regular
Feb 15, 2019

LAVERN JAMES vs. GOOD EARTH NATURAL FOODS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Lavern James's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, with a minor clarification. Specifically, the Board noted that while the applicant experiences difficulty writing and bathing, their physician's testimony and the applicant's own statements did not establish a complete inability to perform these tasks due to their right arm injury. The petition for reconsideration was ultimately denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportdeposition testimonyapplicant's testimonydifficulty writingdifficulty showeringself-caringdeny reconsideration
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 125 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