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. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Esposito v. N. Y. S. Willowbrook State School

Claimant, a food service worker at Willowbrook State School, contracted acute infectious hepatitis after a brief employment period in July 1969. The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded disability, which was upheld by a prior decision filed in March and amended in July 1971. The court on appeal noted the lack of proof that the claimant was exposed to specific infected patients, despite infectious hepatitis being endemic at the school. While the disease can be an occupational disease for hospital employees, an award requires proof of exposure during employment. Due to brief employment and inadequate medical testimony, the court found the conclusion of contracting the disease during employment to be speculative. The decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board was reversed, and the matter remitted for further proof on causal relation.

Occupational DiseaseInfectious HepatitisCausal RelationWorkers' Compensation AppealMedical Evidence InsufficiencyExposure RiskState School EmploymentDisability AwardRemittiturAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2000

Ramnarine v. Memorial Center for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jagdeo Ramnarine, an employee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, suffered a laceration at the Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases. He subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit. The defendant, Memorial Center, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as both the Center and the Hospital operate as a single integrated employer despite their separate legal entities. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court found substantial evidence supporting the integrated employer argument, thereby limiting the plaintiff's remedy to workers' compensation benefits and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntegrated Employer DoctrineSummary Judgment ReversalNegligence ClaimCross Claims DismissedCorporate Alter EgoCommon ControlBronx CountyAppellate DivisionLabor Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elaine W. v. Joint Diseases North General Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including Elaine W., sued Joint Diseases North General Hospital for unlawful sexual discrimination due to its policy of excluding pregnant women from its drug detoxification program. The hospital defended its blanket exclusion on medical grounds, citing a lack of specialized equipment, obstetricians, and licensing for obstetrical care. After conflicting rulings in lower courts, with the Appellate Division siding with the hospital, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court ruled that the hospital must prove its blanket exclusion is medically warranted at trial, rejecting the idea that a mere medical explanation, when disputed, validates a discriminatory policy. The case emphasizes that distinctions based on pregnancy constitute sexual discrimination under New York's Human Rights Law, requiring individual assessment unless a complete medical impossibility of safe treatment is demonstrated.

Sexual DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationDrug Detoxification ProgramHospital PolicyMedical JustificationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentBurden of Proof
References
11
Case No. Index No. 161136/17 Appeal No. 15141 Case No. 2021-02236
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Quiroz v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jose Alfonso Perez Quiroz, a construction worker, sustained injuries after falling from an unstable scaffold at a site managed by Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases and general contractor Turner Construction Company. He initiated legal action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Quiroz's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the unsecured scaffold to be a proximate cause of his fall. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as academic.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment AppealPlaintiff LiabilityDefendant LiabilityProximate CausationRecalcitrant Worker Defense
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2002

Claim of Gandolfo v. MTK Electronics

Claimant, employed by MTK Electronics, developed Hodgkin’s disease due to exposure to trichloroethylene and trichloroethane. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a causally related occupational disease and awarded benefits, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board emphasized the claimant's treating physician's expert testimony, which established a link between the disease and chemical exposure at work. The employer's requests for reconsideration or full Board review were denied. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the causal link between claimant's employment and her occupational disease.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseHodgkin's DiseaseChemical ExposureTrichloroethyleneTrichloroethaneCausalityExpert TestimonyMedical OpinionBoard Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Konieczny v. Butterflake Shop

Claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 8, 1977, which ruled that he did not suffer from an occupational disease. The claimant, employed as a baker, was diagnosed with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthmatic bronchitis, and emphysema, following a history of heavy smoking. The record contained conflicting medical evidence regarding the link between his employment and his condition. The court affirmed the Board's determination, holding that when medical proof is contradictory, the question of occupational disease is one of fact for the Board, and their finding was supported by substantial evidence, particularly Dr. Riley's testimony.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseAsthmatic BronchitisEmphysemaConflicting Medical EvidenceQuestion of FactSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical Testimony
References
2
Case No. ADJ8906863
Regular
Feb 17, 2023

YURI MARKEVITCH vs. HITACID GLOBAL STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, TOKIO MARINE and FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a Legionnaires' disease claim. The applicant contracted the disease during a business trip abroad, which was deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. The Board found the applicant was exposed to a special risk due to travel, distinguishing this case from prior precedents involving non-infectious diseases. Therefore, the Board upheld the compensability of the applicant's injury.

AOE/COELaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.course of employmentarise out of employmentcommercial traveler ruleinfectious diseasespecial exposurerisk of communitymedical expert opinionLegionella Pneumonia
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a car inspector, experienced incapacitating neck, back, and leg pain in 2010, following non-work-related automobile accidents in 1988 and 2003. He sought workers’ compensation benefits, arguing his physical and psychiatric conditions were an occupational disease due to repetitive work tasks. Although the employer failed to timely file a notice of controversy, precluding them from submitting evidence on the course of employment, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and Board disallowed the claim, deeming the treating physicians' causation opinions incredible. The Appellate Division affirmed, stating the claimant still bore the burden of proving a causal link, and the Board was justified in rejecting the medical evidence as incredible, thus supporting the finding of no causally related occupational disease.

Occupational DiseaseCausationMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewNotice of ControversyBurden of ProofCredibilityRepetitive TasksSpinal Problems
References
7
Case No. ADJ8454395
Regular
Jul 26, 2018

HEATHER BRENT vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award finding applicant sustained injury AOE/COE resulting in Lyme disease. The Board found the primary treating physician's report insufficient to constitute substantial medical evidence. Conflicting medical opinions exist, and the report from the agreed medical evaluator was deemed unpersuasive. The case is remanded for further proceedings, potentially appointing an infectious disease specialist to further develop the medical record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationApplicantDefendantInjury AOE/COELyme diseasePrimary Treating Physician (PTP)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Norman PantingM.D.
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 589 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