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. ADJ7941040
Regular
Sep 30, 2014

JESSE NICASIO vs. CITY OF MODESTO, Administered by YORK INSURACE SERVICES

The applicant, a former fire chief, sustained industrial injuries to his heart and multiple myeloma. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that his heart trouble was industrially caused, based on the presumption under Labor Code section 3212 and the AME's opinion that it developed during employment. Regarding cancer, the Board found the applicant's multiple myeloma developed within the statutory timeframe, making it presumptively compensable under Labor Code section 3212.1, and the defendant failed to rebut this presumption. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to benefits for both conditions.

Labor Code section 3212.1heart trouble presumptioncancer presumptionmultiple myelomabenzene exposureleft ventricular hypertrophyfire chieflatency periodmanifestationdevelopment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1996

Claim of Morrell v. Onondaga County

The case involves an appeal from Workers' Compensation Board decisions concerning a claimant's condition caused by prior work exposure. In 1988, while working for Onondaga County Department of Social Services, the claimant was exposed to formaldehyde gas from new desks, leading to chronic respiratory symptoms and formaldehyde poisoning. In 1990, she was diagnosed with multiple myeloma and sought to reopen her workers' compensation case, asserting a causal link. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board found a causal relationship between the formaldehyde exposure and multiple myeloma. The self-insured employer appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, but the Board's decision, supported by expert medical testimony, was affirmed.

Formaldehyde ExposureMultiple MyelomaCausal RelationshipWorkers' Compensation BenefitsOccupational DiseaseToxic ExposureCancer CausationMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate ReviewBoard Discretion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brooks v. Trustees of New York Shipping Ass'n-ILA

The case involves an appeal by a carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision awarding disability benefits to a claimant. The claimant, who fell on a vessel in 1963, initially pursued multiple remedies including a federal compensation claim and a negligence lawsuit against his employer, Cunard Steamship Company Ltd., which settled for $20,000. Subsequently, he reinstated a disability benefits claim, asserting his disability was solely due to myeloma, a condition unrelated to the fall. The Board found the disability was due to myeloma and awarded benefits, rejecting the carrier’s argument of non-duplication of benefits under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 206 (subd. 1, par. [c]) due to the settlement. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that § 206 (subd. 1, par. [c]) does not apply to recoveries from unseaworthiness suits under general maritime law, as such suits are not specifically enumerated in the statute as barring benefits and are not considered 'similar law' in the statutory context.

Disability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawNon-duplication of BenefitsMaritime LawUnseaworthinessMyelomaSettlement AgreementAppealLongshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActJones Act
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2000

Claim of Moreines v. Lawrence Nursing Care Center

Claimant, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) by 1988, ceased employment in March 1995 due to her work environment exacerbating her condition. She filed a workers' compensation claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board initially ruled against a causal relationship between her work and MS exacerbation. Following an appeal, the Board amended its decision, affirming the carrier's consultant found no causal link, whose credibility was maintained under cross-examination. The claimant appealed both decisions, arguing the consultant's report was equivocal and the Board should have accepted her expert's unequivocal testimony. The court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the conflict in medical opinion was within the Board's province to resolve, and the carrier's consultant provided substantial evidence for the Board's finding of no causal link.

Workers' CompensationMultiple SclerosisCausalityMedical OpinionExpert TestimonyBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewDisease ExacerbationWork EnvironmentCredibility
References
4
Case No. ADJ1168599 (WCK 0050522)
Regular
Mar 05, 2009

STANLEY ANGEL (Deceased) WANDA ANGEL (Widow) vs. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, CRAWFORD & COMPANY, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior finding that Stanley Angel's death from multiple myeloma was industrially caused by chemical exposure at Dow Chemical Company. The Board found insufficient evidence of sufficient exposure levels and duration to establish industrial causation. Medical opinions were split, but the Board found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for a causal connection. Consequently, the applicant received no further benefits.

Multiple MyelomaToxic Chemical ExposureIndustrial CausationQualified Medical EvaluatorLatency PeriodOrganic SolventsCumulative TraumaIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ6571874, ADJ7967746
Regular
Oct 21, 2013

DARYL BRISTOL vs. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CITY OF SANTA MONICA RISK MANAGEMENT

The Board denied the applicant's reconsideration regarding his claimed cumulative trauma injury of multiple myeloma, agreeing with the WCJ that employment exposure to benzene was insufficient to establish causation. The Board granted the defendant's reconsideration regarding a specific arm/shoulder injury, affirming it was not due to horseplay. However, the Board amended the award for this specific injury to limit temporary disability benefits to August 26, 2008, finding subsequent disability was due to the applicant's non-industrial cancer. All other issues related to the specific injury remain deferred.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaInternal SystemCancerMultiple MyelomaLabor Code Section 3212.1Presumption of Compensable InjurySpecific InjuryRight Arm and ShoulderHorseplay
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1999

Arnold v. Dow Chemical Co.

Patricia Arnold sued Dow Chemical Company, alleging her late husband, Kenneth Arnold, developed multiple myeloma from TCE exposure at Grumman Aerospace Plant. Dow moved to exclude the testimonies of four expert witnesses, arguing their scientific methodologies were unreliable under Daubert. Judge Spatt denied Dow's motion, ruling the experts' reasoning was sufficiently valid for jury consideration and that any inconsistencies or weaknesses could be addressed through cross-examination. Additionally, the Court denied the plaintiff's appeal regarding a Magistrate Judge's order that required her to pay for expert depositions due to extensive discovery delays.

TCE ExposureMultiple MyelomaExpert Witness TestimonyDaubert StandardFederal Rules of EvidenceIndustrial HygieneEpidemiologyToxicologyHematologyCausation
References
8
Case No. ADJ1168599
Regular
May 29, 2009

STANLEY ANGEL (Deceased) WANDA ANGEL (Widow) vs. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, CRAWFORD & COMPANY, TRAVELERS

This case concerns a widow's petition for reconsideration of a denial of death benefits for her husband, Stanley Angel, who died of multiple myeloma. The Appeals Board previously ruled that there was insufficient substantial medical evidence to establish that Mr. Angel's exposure to toxic chemicals during his employment with Dow Chemical Company caused his illness. The widow argued the Board erred in disregarding the opinion of her Qualified Medical Evaluator, Dr. Harrison, and misapplied the burden of proof. However, the Board affirmed its prior decision, finding Dr. Harrison's revised opinion lacked a solid basis and was inconsistent with other evidence regarding the extent and duration of exposure.

Multiple MyelomaIndustrial InjuryToxic Chemical ExposureQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical CausationLatency PeriodSubstantial Medical EvidenceBurden of ProofReconsiderationOccupational Medicine
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1980

Claim of Eppy v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on November 18, 1980, which determined that the claimant’s husband’s death was causally related to a compensable accidental injury. The Board’s finding relied significantly on the testimony of Dr. Kagen. The record indicated that the claimant’s husband developed symptoms of pre-existing multiple myeloma immediately following a work-related back injury. Dr. Kagen opined that the trauma aggravated the pre-existing disease, thereby shortening the decedent’s lifespan. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that despite the doctor’s testimony not being expressed with absolute medical certainty, it was sufficient because it reasonably indicated a probability supported by a rational basis.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipAccidental InjuryMultiple MyelomaAggravation of Pre-existing ConditionMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionPhysician Testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Morrell

Claimant Morrell, employed by Onondaga County Department of Social Services, developed respiratory issues and multiple myeloma from formaldehyde exposure, leading to a workers' compensation award. She subsequently sought employer payment for an air purifier, organic food, and vitamin supplements to address consequential upper airway irritation and sinusitis. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed an award for these items, based on medical opinion, prompting the employer's appeal. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found substantial evidence for the causal link between formaldehyde exposure and claimant's current ailments. It ruled that the requested items fell under "other attendance or treatment" in Workers’ Compensation Law § 13 (a), but limited the employer's organic food liability to the cost exceeding conventional food, reversing and remitting the Board's decision for this recalculation.

Workers' CompensationFormaldehyde ExposureRespiratory IllnessSinusitisMedical BenefitsOrganic FoodAir PurifierVitamin SupplementsCausationEmployer Liability
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,079 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