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 Murphy v. Olean Tile Co.

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's silicosis. The claimant, exposed to silica dust from 1927-1947, stopped work in April 1956 due to the condition. The appellants argued disablement wasn't within two years of last exposure under section 44-a. Initially, a Referee awarded compensation, setting the disablement date as April 6, 1956, which the Board later affirmed after further evidence of exposure in the last four weeks of employment. The court affirmed the decision, finding substantial evidence of exposure and applying a retroactive amendment to section 44-a that deems claims compensable if disablement occurs during continued employment or two years thereafter when an employee is transferred from injurious to non-injurious exposure.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseWorkmen's Compensation LawSection 44-aInjurious ExposureDisablementRetroactive ApplicationAppellate ReviewMedical TestimonyEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. ADJ8804613
Regular
Jun 03, 2016

KIM LARSEN vs. UKIAH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant school district's petition for reconsideration of an award for acute myeloid leukemia. The Board found the applicant's exposure to diesel exhaust while employed by the school district was an injurious exposure contributing to the cancer. The Board ruled that the agreed medical evaluator's reports were admissible and constituted substantial medical evidence of the link between diesel exhaust and leukemia. Therefore, the school district was held liable as the last employer where the applicant was exposed to the hazard.

acute myeloid leukemiadiesel exhaust exposurecumulative traumalast injurious exposureagreed medical evaluatorlabor code section 5500.5reasonably probable causationsubstantial medical evidencebenzene exposurefirefighter
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Filipowicz v. De Laval Separator Co.

This case concerns an appeal by an employer and carrier challenging an award for total disability due to silicosis. It was conceded that the claimant suffered from silicosis and was permanently and totally disabled. Appellants argued that there was no proof of injurious exposure during the claimant's last employment with the employer. However, evidence showed the claimant worked as a trucker in the employer's rubber plant, where he was exposed to talc containing silica. The board found sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between this exposure and the claimant's disability, thus affirming the award.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseTotal DisabilityInjurious ExposureTalc ExposureFoundry WorkerRubber PlantWorkers' Compensation BoardCausal Relation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Nathan Trotter & Co.

The Supreme Court erred in not dismissing a personal injury and wrongful death complaint as time-barred. The decedent was exposed to toxic substances between 1957 and 1959 while working for Empire Metal Company. He was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis in November 1983 and had a lung biopsy in March 1985, after which he was informed of a work-related lung disease. A Workers' Compensation claim was filed in April 1985, and the Workers' Compensation Board found permanent total disability from mixed dust pneumoconiosis in August 1986. The plaintiff commenced this action in March 1992, which was found to be beyond the three-year statute of limitations from the last exposure or discovery of injury, even considering CPLR 214-c.

Statute of LimitationsToxic ExposurePersonal InjuryWrongful DeathPulmonary FibrosisMixed Dust PneumoconiosisWorkers' CompensationDiscovery RuleCommencement of ActionTime-Barred
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2002

In re the Claim of Conway v. CBI Services, Inc.

Decedent, exposed to asbestos through various employers from 1966 to 1989, developed lung cancer and filed a workers' compensation claim. Initially, liability was assigned to Insulation Distributors, Inc.'s carrier. Following his death, his widow pursued a death benefits claim, wherein the Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined CBI Services, Inc. and its insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Company, were liable, finding no asbestosis (a dust disease) and applying Workers’ Compensation Law § 44. CBI and National Union appealed, contesting due process regarding notice and the sufficiency of evidence for their liability. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that notice to CBI imputed notice to National Union and that substantial evidence supported CBI's liability as the last employer whose work caused the disease, dismissing all grounds for appeal.

Asbestos exposureOccupational diseaseLung cancerDeath benefits claimEmployer liabilityInsurance carrier liabilityDue process rightsNotice requirementsLast injurious exposureAsbestosis diagnosis
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romanelli v. Long Island Railroad

Frank Romanelli sued his employer, the Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR), under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), alleging that his work as a track worker exposed him to hazardous environmental contaminants, causing pulmonary and cardiac problems. LIRR filed three motions in limine to preclude Romanelli's medical experts from testifying on causation, Romanelli from testifying about exposure to toxins at unsafe levels, and Romanelli from testifying that LIRR had a duty to provide a respirator. The court granted the motions in part and denied in part. It allowed treating physicians to testify on the causation of respiratory issues by workplace exposures due to common knowledge, but not on the link between pulmonary and cardiac problems without demonstrated methodology. Romanelli was permitted to testify about his first-hand exposure to dust, fumes, and chemicals but not to label them as 'hazardous contaminants' or at 'unsafe' levels. Lastly, Romanelli could not testify about LIRR's legal duty to provide a respirator, but could testify about not being provided one despite requests and that its absence caused him to ingest more harmful substances.

FELAMotions in LimineExpert Witness TestimonyLay Witness TestimonyCausationEvidentiary StandardsWorkplace ExposurePulmonary ConditionsCardiac ConditionsRespirator Requirements
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Imbriani v. Berkar Knitting Mills

Decedent, a heavy smoker, worked for 30 years in the textile industry, with the last five years exposing him to airborne cotton dust. He developed chronic advanced obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, and byssinosis, leading to total disability. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found his disability was due to byssinosis, an occupational disease, and awarded benefits. The employer did not appeal. Upon decedent's death a year later from cardiopulmonary arrest linked to his pulmonary disease and byssinosis, his widow filed for death benefits. A subsequent WCLJ reversed the prior finding of byssinosis, claiming insufficient evidence and lack of exposure to raw cotton. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this reversal. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding it arbitrary and capricious because the employer had not appealed the initial finding of byssinosis, making it final and binding. The Court also concluded that the Board's finding that death was unrelated to compensable byssinosis lacked record support, as medical testimony indicated byssinosis was a contributing factor. The case was remitted for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseByssinosisWorkers' CompensationPulmonary DiseaseEmphysemaCotton Dust ExposureCausal RelationshipDeath BenefitsRes JudicataCollateral Estoppel
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Gruber

This case consolidates two appeals, Matter of Gruber and Matter of Greene, concerning the interpretation of "last employment" under Labor Law § 593(1) for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and the Appellate Division had previously ruled that "last employment" referred to any employment, covered or not, and found claimants eligible. The Court of Appeals reversed these decisions, holding that "last employment" in Labor Law § 593(1) refers exclusively to "covered employment" as defined in Labor Law § 511. Consequently, the claimants, who voluntarily left their last covered employment under disqualifying conditions, were deemed ineligible for benefits, as their subsequent non-covered employment did not restore their eligibility. The court emphasized that the unemployment insurance program is intended for workers in the legislatively defined labor market.

Unemployment InsuranceStatutory InterpretationLast EmploymentCovered EmploymentVoluntary SeparationDisqualification for BenefitsLabor LawNew York Court of AppealsUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardMedical Residency
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilson v. Southern Tier Custom Fabricators

Claimant, a sheet metal worker for nearly 40 years, was diagnosed with asbestosis in May 2002 and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The primary dispute centered on identifying the employer responsible for the claimant's last injurious exposure to asbestos, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 44-a. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found Southern Tier Custom Fabricators to be the employer at the time of the last exposure, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. On appeal, the court upheld the Board's determination, citing that the question of last injurious exposure is a factual matter for the Board, and its findings, if supported by substantial evidence and reasonable inferences from the claimant's uncontradicted testimony, would not be disturbed.

Workers' CompensationAsbestosisOccupational DiseaseInjurious ExposureEmployer LiabilitySubstantial EvidenceFactual DeterminationAppellate ReviewCredibilityWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Von Roll Isola USA, Inc. & International Union of Electronic

Petitioner's corporate predecessor, Insulating Materials, Inc. (IMI), initially terminated employee David Stringham, a member of respondent labor union. The termination was later withdrawn under a last chance agreement, which stipulated that any future violations of IMI's Code of Conduct would result in immediate dismissal without grievance rights. Petitioner subsequently terminated Stringham again for allegedly failing to follow safety rules and leaving work early without authorization. In response, the respondent union filed a demand for arbitration on Stringham's behalf. Petitioner then sought to stay the arbitration, arguing that Stringham had waived his arbitration rights in the last chance agreement. The Supreme Court granted the petition to stay arbitration, prompting the respondent to appeal the decision. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the last chance agreement did not address who determines whether a code of conduct violation occurred, thereby allowing arbitration on that specific threshold issue.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLast Chance AgreementEmployment TerminationGrievance ProcedureWaiver of RightsThreshold QuestionCode of ConductLabor RelationsAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 387 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