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

Litwack v. Plaza Realty Investors, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by toxic mold in a plaintiff's apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint, and these orders were subsequently affirmed on appeal. The central legal question revolved around whether the defendants' knowledge of a discolored, wet wall and a steam pipe leak constituted sufficient notice of a potential mold hazard. The majority concluded that such knowledge, as a matter of law, did not establish notice of potential mold growth. A dissenting opinion argued that the focus should be on whether defendants had notice of persistent water leaks, from which a hazardous mold condition was foreseeable, citing the plaintiff's repeated complaints and an expert's opinion.

Toxic MoldPersonal InjuryLandlord LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeWater DamageAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessPremises LiabilityEnvironmental Health
References
3
Case No. ADJ3321482 (SAC 0347549)
Regular
May 29, 2012

MARYLOU SMITH vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for sinus injuries allegedly caused by workplace mold exposure. The defendant, County of Sacramento, sought reconsideration after an administrative law judge found the injury AOE/COE, relying on the applicant's treating physician's opinion. The defendant argued that the agreed medical examiner's opinion should have prevailed and that there was insufficient evidence of a materially greater workplace mold exposure. The majority of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the treating physician's opinion persuasive and sufficiently supported by medical evidence.

Agreed Medical ExaminerCausationMold ExposureFungal SinusitisIndustrial InjuryOccupational NexusMedical ProbabilitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2013

Claim of Cappelletti v. Marcellus Central School District

A school teacher filed a workers' compensation claim, asserting she developed an autoimmune disorder due to workplace mold exposure. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a compensable work-related injury, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending the claimant failed to demonstrate the condition resulted from unusual environmental conditions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the claimant's testimony of mold exposure and three medical opinions supporting a causal link. Despite conflicting evidence, the court found the Board’s decision supported by substantial evidence.

Autoimmune DisorderMold ExposureWorkplace InjuryWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionsCausationEnvironmental ConditionsClaimant Testimony
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brothers v. Tyco International, Ltd.

The plaintiffs contracted with ADT for a home security system. During installation, a worker employed by Tyco negligently damaged a waste disposal pipe, leading to a slow leakage and a mold condition in the plaintiffs' house. After recovering over $40,000 from their homeowner’s insurance for remediation expenses, the plaintiffs initiated this action against ADT and Tyco to recover consequential and incidental damages not covered by their insurance, such as those from mold exposure and life disruption. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The court found that the contract between the plaintiffs and ADT contained an unequivocal exculpatory provision, stating the defendants would not be liable for losses due to water intrusion or mold resulting from the security system installation, which the plaintiffs failed to rebut.

home security systemnegligent installationwaste pipe damagemold damageconsequential damagesincidental damagesexculpatory clausecontract disputesummary judgmentproperty damage
References
3
Case No. FRE 0217800; FRE 0218000; FRE 0222219; FRE 0222220; FRE 0222221
Regular
Jun 23, 2008

JULIO ALVAREZ vs. CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for reconsideration to correct a clerical error, increasing the permanent disability rating from 10% to 11% after apportionment, as stipulated by the parties. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury due to mold exposure or psychological injury, as the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for these claims. The Board found the WCJ's reliance on the toxicology expert's opinion was supported by substantial evidence, thus affirming the denial of mold-related injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentMold ExposureIndustrial InjuryAOE/COEClaim FormPresumption of CompensabilitySubstantial EvidenceClerical Error
References
15
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

Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC

Brenda Cornell sued 360 West 51st Street Corp. for personal injuries allegedly caused by indoor exposure to dampness and mold in her Manhattan apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding Cornell failed to prove general or specific causation under the Frye standard. The Appellate Division subsequently reversed this, suggesting Cornell's expert opinion had "some support" in scientific literature. However, the Court of Appeals, in this opinion, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Cornell failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court reiterated that scientific "association" does not equate to "causation" and found her expert's differential diagnosis insufficient due to lack of exposure quantification and inadequate ruling out of other causes. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was ultimately granted.

Mold ExposurePersonal InjuryCausationFrye StandardScientific EvidenceExpert Witness TestimonySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEnvironmental HealthDifferential Diagnosis
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Waddy v. Barnard College

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision affirming the disallowance of a claimant's application for benefits. The claimant, an employee in a mail room, alleged that exposure to dust and mold due to poor ventilation at her workplace caused her to develop disabling asthma. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, finding no causal relationship between her asthma and employment, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Board. The Board's determination was based on the medical opinions of the treating pulmonologist, William Marino, who could not establish work-related causation, and an independent medical examiner, Carl Friedman, who concluded that the asthma was not workplace-induced, referencing a negative indoor air quality test. While the claimant's family physician, Rajesh Patel, suggested a probable work-related allergen exposure, the Board resolved the conflicting medical evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the ruling that the claimant did not sustain a causally related injury.

Workers' CompensationAsthmaOccupational DiseaseCausationMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Treating PhysicianEnvironmental IrritantsWorkplace ConditionsAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. Appeal Nos. 5104, 5105, 5106, 5107, 5108, 5109, 5110, 5111
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2001

Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc.

This case involves an appeal by defendants-appellants from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied their motions for summary judgment in a series of lawsuits concerning asbestos exposure from Worthington pumps. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding sufficient issues of fact to preclude dismissal. Evidence presented included defendant Worthington's own admission of the high prevalence of its pumps on Navy ships, testimony from workers regarding Worthington pumps in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and Worthington's use of asbestos-containing components like gaskets and packing. The court also noted a Worthington manual referencing asbestos and government specifications requiring asbestos use, questioning whether the pumps could be safely operated without asbestos insulation despite Worthington not manufacturing or installing it.

Asbestos ExposureProduct LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty to WarnManufacturer LiabilityAppellate ReviewOccupational ExposureNavy ShipsGasketsPumps
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2013

Claim of DePascale v. Magazine Distributors, Inc.

The claimant applied for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma developed due to exposure to toxic substances at the employer's former nuclear fuel rod facility. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially reversed a WCLJ decision, finding insufficient evidence of a causal link. Later, the Board granted the claimant's request to consider new medical evidence, rescinded the WCLJ’s decision, and remitted the matter for a new determination. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed these Board decisions and the subsequent denial of their request for reconsideration. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals, deeming the Board’s decisions interlocutory and not final, thus not subject to piecemeal review.

Workers' CompensationCancerToxic ExposureCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceInterlocutory AppealAppeal DismissalRemittalBoard ReviewNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 611 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