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 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fama v. P & M Sorbara

This case addresses the complex principles of workers' compensation benefit liability for asbestos-exposed workers suffering from both "dust diseases" like asbestosis and "occupational diseases" such as asbestos-related pleural disease (ARPD). The Special Funds Conservation Committee argued for separate claims due to differing statutory treatments for these conditions. The Workers' Compensation Board established the claim for asbestosis, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. The court held that when a claimant's disability is partly due to a dust disease, the dust disease provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law take precedence, and separate claims for nondust diseases arising from the same asbestos exposure are unnecessary.

Workers' CompensationAsbestos ExposureDust DiseaseOccupational DiseaseAsbestosisPleural DiseaseSpecial Disability FundEmployer LiabilityApportionment of LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Board
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Aerospace

The employer and its insurance carrier appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board that discharged the Special Funds Conservation Committee from liability on a death claim. The decedent, who died from mesothelioma, had previously developed asbestosis, a recognized dust disease, which medical evidence showed precipitated the cancer. The Board had erroneously concluded that Special Fund was not liable solely because mesothelioma is not a dust disease. The court clarified that Special Fund's liability extends to cases where a dust disease is a contributory or precipitating factor, not just the direct cause of death. Finding the Board's decision irrational and unsupported by substantial evidence, the court reversed it. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.

AsbestosisMesotheliomaDust DiseaseOccupational DiseaseSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeCausationContributory FactorPrecipitating FactorMedical EvidenceAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Matott v. St. Joe's Lead

Claimant, a retired miner, sought workers' compensation benefits in 1991 for an occupational lung disease allegedly caused by dust exposure during his employment from 1949 to 1974. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found a permanent partial disability but later reversed, denying benefits. The Board's reasoning was that the partial disability stemmed from a 'dust disease' prior to July 1, 1974, thus excluded under former Workers' Compensation Law § 39. However, the appellate court found that medical experts agreed the claimant suffered from chronic bronchitis, not a pneumoconiosis-type 'dust disease'. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the grounds for denying benefits were erroneous, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseLung DiseaseChronic BronchitisDust ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPartial DisabilityPneumoconiosisStatutory InterpretationScope of CoveragePre-1974 Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Graham v. Armstrong Contracting & Supply Co.

This case addresses the interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 39, specifically regarding eligibility for partial disability benefits due to dust disease. The claimant, exposed to harmful dust between 1931-1966 and 1971-1974, was diagnosed with asbestosis in 1979. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially denied compensation, interpreting the 1974 amendment to require six months of injurious exposure after July 1, 1974. The court reversed this decision, ruling that a literal interpretation of the statutory language "on and after such date" would frustrate legislative intent. The court concluded that the word "and" should be read as "or" to align with the legislative goal of expanding compensation coverage for workers partially disabled by dust diseases. The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.

Workers' Compensation LawDust DiseaseAsbestosisPartial DisabilityStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentAppellate ReviewNew YorkInjurious ExposureEligibility for Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Roberts v. Agway, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an occupational disease and resulting death of claimant's husband due to harmful dust exposure during employment, discharging the Special Disability Fund. Appellants, the employer Agway, Inc. and its insurance carrier, contended that the claim should be reimbursable from the Special Disability Fund under provisions relating to silicosis or other dust diseases. The decedent had incurred chronic bronchitis, diffuse pulmonary emphysema, and chronic corpulmonale, resulting in his death. The court affirmed the prior award to the claimant, stating that cereal grain exposure is not a 'dust disease' covered by the specific Workers' Compensation Law sections for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund. The board's decision, supported by unanimous medical opinion that the decedent did not suffer from silicosis or other pneumoconiosis, was affirmed.

Occupational DiseaseDust DiseaseWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundCausal RelationshipChronic BronchitisPulmonary EmphysemaChronic CorpulmonaleSilicosisPneumoconiosis
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Grill v. Fashion Institute of Technology

Claimant was diagnosed with interstitial pulmonary fibrosis and lung disease, established as a compensable occupational disease. The central issue was whether her condition qualified as a dust disease under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (ee), entitling the employer to Special Disability Fund reimbursement. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled against the employer, a decision subsequently affirmed. The court credited the treating pulmonologist's finding that the claimant suffered from pneumonitis due to aerosolized paint exposure, rather than pneumoconiosis, which is required for a dust disease classification. Therefore, the employer's appeal for reimbursement was denied.

Occupational DiseaseInterstitial Pulmonary FibrosisLung DiseaseDust DiseaseSpecial Disability FundWorkers' Compensation LawReimbursementPneumonitisPneumoconiosisAerosolized Paint Exposure
References
10
Case No. CV-24-0787
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Peter Hurley

Peter Hurley, a special education teacher, established a workers' compensation claim for asthma in 2018. After working remotely during the pandemic, his employer, Lawrence School District, required his return to in-person teaching. Due to his medical condition, he was assigned to an air-conditioned classroom and later a library, where construction dust and mold were reportedly not an issue. Hurley did not report to the library assignment, asserting his doctors advised against exposure to dust and mold. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a finding that Hurley's refusal was an unreasonable refusal of a job offer and a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, as his medical contentions were not sufficiently supported. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketAsthma ExacerbationJob RefusalMedical Evidence SufficiencyAppellate ReviewEmployer ReassignmentCOVID-19 ImpactSpecial Education TeacherWorkplace Allergens
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. J. Crew Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Soto, an employee of a commercial cleaning company, suffered injuries after falling from a ladder while dusting a display shelf at a J. Crew store. He sued J. Crew and The Mercer I L.L.C. under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging a failure to provide adequate safety devices. The lower courts granted summary judgment to the defendants, classifying Soto's task as routine maintenance not covered by the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed, establishing criteria to differentiate routine cleaning from covered activities and concluding that dusting a display shelf was not within the statute's protective scope. The decision clarifies the application of Labor Law § 240 (1) regarding elevation-related risks in commercial cleaning.

Labor LawElevation RiskRoutine MaintenanceCommercial CleaningPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationLadder FallWorkplace Safety
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2013

Broome County v. The Travelers Indemnity Company

This case involves cross-appeals from an order concerning an insurance dispute. The plaintiff, an insured party, experienced property damage due to silica dust migration during construction, which they claimed was covered by their first-party insurance policy with the defendants, The Travelers Indemnity Company and The Travelers Companies, Inc. The defendants disclaimed coverage based on pollution and faulty workmanship exclusions. While the Supreme Court initially found issues of fact, the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court ruled that both the pollution exclusion, defining silica dust as a pollutant, and the faulty workmanship exclusion, pertaining to flawed construction processes, unambiguously applied to bar coverage. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to the defendants, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Insurance PolicyFirst-Party CoveragePollution ExclusionFaulty Workmanship ExclusionSummary JudgmentSilica DustProperty DamageAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationAmbiguity in Policy
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 81 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