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

McSpadden v. General Motors Corp.

The case concerns a motion for reconsideration filed by defendants General Motors Corporation and a union after the court denied their previous motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff was dismissed from his job in April 1984 and filed suit in January 1985, before being formally notified in September 1985 that his grievance had been withdrawn. Initially, the court found that requiring the plaintiff to exhaust intra-union remedies would cause unreasonable delay. However, upon reconsideration, the court determined that the plaintiff's complaint was prematurely filed, as his cause of action accrued only after the grievance withdrawal notification. The court also concluded that the available intra-union procedures could provide an adequate remedy without unreasonable delay. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Summary JudgmentReconsiderationGrievance ProcedureExhaustion of Administrative RemediesPremature FilingCause of Action AccrualIntra-union RemediesWrongful TerminationLabor LawFederal Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Department

Petitioners, the New York Times Company and Jim Dwyer, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking the disclosure of records from the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), related to the events of September 11, 2001. Their request included oral histories of FDNY personnel and radio communications. The FDNY denied parts of the request, citing exemptions for law enforcement purposes, intra-agency materials, and personal privacy. The court ruled that the FDNY failed to demonstrate the applicability of the law enforcement exemption. Consequently, the court ordered the disclosure of factual portions of the oral histories, the 911 tapes and transcripts of family members who waived privacy, and non-intra-agency parts of operator, dispatcher, and unit communications, while denying petitioners' request for attorneys' fees.

Freedom of Information LawFOILPublic RecordsSeptember 11World Trade CenterFDNYOral HistoriesRadio CommunicationsPrivacy ExemptionLaw Enforcement Exemption
References
14
Case No. ADJ7250315
Regular
Feb 14, 2020

ROBYN ARIAS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION

This case involves a correctional officer's cumulative trauma claim. The employer sought reconsideration, arguing the cumulative trauma ended on July 8, 2014, as the applicant allegedly sustained no disability prior to that date. However, the Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant experienced disability earlier due to chemotherapy for non-Hodgkins lymphoma. This disability, occurring from February 2007 to February 2008, establishes the injury's cumulative trauma period under Labor Code section 5412.

Cumulative traumaCorrectional officerLumbar spine injuryPsyche injuryNon-Hodgkins LymphomaPermanent disability indemnityCompensable consequence injuryLabor Code section 5412Date of injuryCumulative injury end date
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2007

Petrocelli v. Sewanhaka Central School District

The claimant's husband (decedent) died while coaching a high school basketball game. An autopsy revealed the cause of death was a spontaneous rupture of the splenic artery due to portal hypertension, cirrhosis of the liver, and chemotherapy. The claimant filed for workers' compensation death benefits, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the presumption of a causally related death under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 had been rebutted. This was based on evidence in the death certificate indicating non-work-related factors. The claimant appealed the decision, but the Board's finding was affirmed, requiring the claimant to provide proof of a causally related death.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausationPresumption of CompensabilityRebuttal of PresumptionAutopsy FindingsSplenic Artery RupturePortal HypertensionCirrhosisChemotherapy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2005

United States v. DiPietro

During jury selection for a multi-defendant case, defendant Nicola Murdocca, who is undergoing chemotherapy for lung cancer, suffered a dramatic medical collapse in the courtroom. This incident, involving audible moaning, foaming at the mouth, and Murdocca yelling about his cancer, caused pandemonium and drew attention from jurors, other defendants, and defense counsel. Paramedics were called, and Murdocca was later discharged from the hospital after being treated for dizziness. The Government requested a new jury selection, citing contamination. The Court granted Murdocca's severance application on medical grounds and dismissed the existing jury pool, deeming them unable to be impartial due to the traumatic events and certain courtroom interactions.

Jury selectionMistrialDefendant illnessSeveranceJury impartialityCourtroom incidentChemotherapyLung cancerDue processJudicial discretion
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02261 [183 AD3d 211]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2020

Nemeth v. Brenntag N. Am.

This case concerns the appeal of a jury verdict in favor of Francis Nemeth, representing the estate of Florence Nemeth, who died from peritoneal mesothelioma. The jury found that Nemeth's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos-contaminated talc in Desert Flower Talcum Powder, supplied by Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. (WCD) to Shulton, Inc. WCD challenged the findings on general and specific causation, claiming insufficient evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the jury's verdict on causation, finding sufficient evidence to support it. The court also addressed and rejected WCD's arguments regarding summation remarks and jury instructions, and modified the judgment to increase the principal award, while otherwise affirming it.

Asbestos exposurePeritoneal mesotheliomaToxic tortCausationExpert testimonyTalcum powderProduct liabilityAppellate reviewJury verdictDamages
References
42
Case No. No. 24
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2022

Francis Nemeth v. Brenntag North America

Plaintiff's spouse, Florence Nemeth, died from peritoneal mesothelioma after daily use of Desert Flower talcum powder, which plaintiff alleged contained asbestos supplied by defendant Whittaker, Clark & Daniels. A jury found the defendant liable, awarding damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium. However, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, dismissing the complaint against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. The Court ruled that plaintiff's expert testimony and scientific evidence were insufficient as a matter of law to establish specific causation in this toxic tort case. It emphasized that while precise quantification of exposure is not always necessary, sufficient exposure levels to the toxin, supported by generally accepted methodologies, must be demonstrated.

MesotheliomaAsbestos exposureToxic tortCausationExpert testimonySufficiency of evidenceTalcum powderProduct liabilityAppellate reviewScientific evidence
References
35
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04765 [129 AD3d 463]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Hockler v. William Powell Co.

Plaintiff Bryan Hockler alleged that he developed peritoneal mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure during his work in the 1980s, dismantling and salvaging scrap metal, which included valves manufactured by defendant The William Powell Company. His claims against Powell were based on theories of strict products liability and negligence due to defective design. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this order. The appellate court found that even if the valves were defectively designed, plaintiff's injuries did not result from their intended or reasonably foreseeable use, as dismantling was not considered such a use. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

MesotheliomaAsbestos ExposureProducts LiabilityNegligenceDefective DesignForeseeable UseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewScrap MetalDismantling
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Delee v. Crouse Hinds Division of Cooper Industries

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1991, resulting in a permanent partial disability and workers' compensation benefits. After being terminated and later finding new employment, she developed breast cancer, leading to neuropathy and cardiomyopathy from chemotherapy, preventing her return to work. The employer's carrier argued her current inability to work was solely due to cancer, not the back injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision, continuing claimant's reduced earnings award. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that supervening nonindustrial causes do not absolve an employer if the established permanent partial disability still contributes to reduced earning capacity, which is a factual determination for the Board, supported by substantial evidence in this case.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsSupervening Nonindustrial CausesCausationAppellate ReviewMedical OpinionBack InjuryChemotherapy ComplicationsBoard Findings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 1982

Wan Chung Wen v. Ferro

The petitioner, a Chinese cook-restaurateur facing deportation, sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) unexplained denial of deferred action status during his visa petition. He argued that this denial violated his due process and equal protection rights. The court found that deferred action status, governed by INS Operating Instruction 103.1(a)(1)(ii), was an administrative choice for resource allocation and did not confer a substantive right upon aliens. Citing *Zacharakis v. Howerton*, the court adopted the reasoning that the instruction was an intra-agency guideline. Consequently, the court denied the relief, concluding that the petitioner had no claim to an explanation for the refusal, as his liberty interest was adequately protected by formal statutory and regulatory procedures.

Habeas CorpusDeportationDeferred Action StatusImmigration LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAdministrative DiscretionINS Operating InstructionsAlien RightsJudicial Review
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 17 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