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. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. ADJ7318651
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

JERRY CHAVEZ, Jr. vs. CITY OF VERNON

This case concerns a police officer diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma who sought workers' compensation benefits under Labor Code section 3212.1's cancer presumption. The applicant presented evidence of industrial exposure to known carcinogens such as diesel exhaust and benzene. The defense failed to rebut the presumption by failing to present evidence that the primary cancer site was identified and that the identified carcinogen was not reasonably linked to the cancer. The Appeals Board affirmed the judge's findings, denying the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of VernonJerry Chavez Jr.Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ruling and Awardcancer presumptionLabor Code section 3212.1industrial exposurecarcinogenic substancesWCJ
References
7
Case No. SRO 134400, SRO 139130
Regular
Sep 11, 2007

COBY RICHARDS vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA AND G.B. BRAGG AND ASSOCIATES, CITY OF CLOVERDALE AND REMIF

The applicant, a police officer, claimed a cumulative trauma injury resulting in a brain tumor, asserting exposure to x-rays as a known carcinogen under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant did not establish an industrial injury. While acknowledging the applicant's exposure to x-rays, the Board found this exposure did not present a reasonable link to the brain tumor, as per the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion that only direct radiation to the brain is a known risk factor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryAstrocytomaBrain tumorCarcinogenLabor Code section 3212.1Presumption of injuryPeace officerCumulative traumaX-rays
References
7
Case No. ADJ7050870
Regular
Apr 04, 2018

Kevin Couch vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

This case involves a deputy sheriff diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who sought workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and found the applicant's CLL to be industrially caused. The WCAB determined that the applicant was entitled to the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 3212.1 due to his documented exposure to benzene, a known carcinogen in gasoline and diesel exhaust. The Board concluded that the defendant failed to rebut this presumption, despite evidence suggesting an alternative cause, because they did not demonstrate by substantial evidence that the carcinogen was not reasonably linked to the applicant's condition. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the prior decision and issued a new finding of injury.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumption of compensabilitychronic lymphocytic leukemiadeputy sheriffbenzenegasoline exhaustdiesel exhaustcarcinogen exposurelatency periodAgreed Medical Examiner
References
2
Case No. 01-22-00052-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2024

Aggreko, LLC v. Bronxcare Health System, Formerly Known as the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center

An employee of Aggreko, LLC was fatally injured on Bronxcare Health System (BLH) premises, leading to the employee's heirs suing BLH in New York. BLH filed third-party claims against Aggreko, which sought to enforce a forum-selection clause requiring litigation in Harris County, Texas, but New York courts denied its motion. After settling the New York lawsuit, Aggreko sued BLH in Texas for indemnification, alleging BLH accepted its Terms and Conditions. The Texas trial court granted BLH's special appearance and dismissed Aggreko's suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed, concluding Aggreko failed to prove a valid forum-selection clause applied, as BLH never objectively agreed to its terms.

Contract DisputeForum-Selection ClausePersonal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceOffer and AcceptanceCounterofferRatificationEstoppelAgency AuthorityTexas Law
References
27
Case No. SDO 244774
Significant
Dec 11, 2003

Walter Faust vs. City of San Diego

The Appeals Board held that under the amended Labor Code section 3212.1, a firefighter only needs to show exposure to a known carcinogen to establish a presumption of industrial cancer, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove no reasonable link.

Labor Code section 3212.1cumulative industrial injuryfirefightercancerpresumptionrebutting presumptionqualified medical evaluatorcarcinogencadmiumplating company fire
References
4
Case No. 03-15-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2015

Elite Auto Body LLC, D/B/A Precision Auto Body Rey R. Hernandez Yesica Diaz And David Damian v. Autocraft Body Works, Inc., Now Known as Wasson Road Ventures, Inc. D/B/A Autocraft Bodywerks

The Appellants, Elite Auto Body LLC, Rey R. Hernandez, Yesica Diaz, and David Damian, are appealing a trial court's order that denied their Motion to Dismiss. This motion was filed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) against claims of trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and breach of fiduciary duty brought by Appellee Autocraft Bodywerks, Inc. Appellants contend that the trial court erred by narrowly construing the TCPA, failing to recognize that their communications regarding business practices and employee recruitment are protected under rights of association and free speech. They also argue that Autocraft failed to provide sufficient 'clear and specific evidence' to establish a prima facie case for its claims, which is a requirement under the TCPA. Consequently, Appellants are seeking a reversal of the trial court's order, dismissal of Autocraft's claims, and an award for their attorneys' fees and expenses.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPTrade Secret MisappropriationUnfair CompetitionFiduciary DutyFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechAppellate ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
42
Case No. 13-06-352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2007

Endeavor Natural Gas, L.P., Acting Through Its General Partner, Eng Management, L.L.C., Formerly Known as Endeavor Natural Gas, L.L.C. v. Magnum Hunter Production, Inc., Prize Energy Resources, L.P., and Prize Operating Company

Endeavor Natural Gas, L.P. initiated a lawsuit against Magnum Hunter Production, Inc. and its affiliates, seeking to reclaim $766,472.72 in severance tax refunds and credits associated with oil and gas properties. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of an Assignment and a subsequent Letter Agreement, specifically defining "expenses" and "revenues" related to the properties. Endeavor argued that the tax refunds constituted expenses, thus falling under the Letter Agreement which would entitle Endeavor to these funds. Conversely, Magnum Hunter asserted that these refunds were neither expenses nor revenues, meaning the broader terms of the Assignment, which favored Magnum Hunter, should govern. The trial court ultimately sided with Magnum Hunter, granting their motion for summary judgment and denying Endeavor's. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concurring that the severance tax refunds and credits did not fit the definitions of "expenses" or "revenues" within the Letter Agreement, thereby upholding that the Assignment's provisions, beneficial to Magnum Hunter, were applicable.

Contract DisputeSummary JudgmentOil and GasSeverance TaxTax RefundsContract InterpretationLegal DefinitionsTexas LawAppellate ReviewProperty Conveyance
References
41
Case No. ADJ6720899
Regular
May 15, 2012

MELISSA ROSAS vs. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of San Bernardino Police Department's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the applicant, Melissa Rosas, sustained a compensable injury in the form of cancer. This decision was based on the applicant being a police officer exposed to known carcinogens and the presumption under Labor Code § 3212.1 not being rebutted by the defense. The judge found the applicant's treating physician's opinion on variable cancer latency periods more persuasive than the defense expert's.

Labor Code § 3212.1cancer presumptionpolice officercarcinogen exposurebenzenecigarette smokegasoline fumesauto accidentsvehicle firesresidence fires
References
1
Case No. ADJ3276532 (OAK 0336096)
Regular
Mar 29, 2011

JERRY DUARTE (Deceased) SHIRLEY DUARTE (Widow) vs. STOESSER INDUSTRIES, SCIF INSURED PLEASANTON, FIREMAN'S FUND SACRAMENTO

This case concerns a widow's claim for workers' compensation death benefits following her husband's cancer death, alleging exposure to carcinogenic chemicals at work. The original finding barred the claim due to the statute of limitations, as the application was filed over a year after the employee's death. The Appeals Board, on reconsideration, reversed this, finding the defendant failed to prove the widow knew or should have known of the industrial causation within the one-year period. Therefore, the claim is not time-barred, and all other issues are returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Cumulative TraumaCarcinogenic ChemicalsDeath BenefitsStatute of LimitationsIndustrial CausationOccupational ExposureDependent ClaimMedical ConfirmationReasonable DiligenceAffirmative Defense
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 405 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