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
Sep 16, 2002

Claim of Gandolfo v. MTK Electronics

Claimant, employed by MTK Electronics, developed Hodgkin’s disease due to exposure to trichloroethylene and trichloroethane. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a causally related occupational disease and awarded benefits, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board emphasized the claimant's treating physician's expert testimony, which established a link between the disease and chemical exposure at work. The employer's requests for reconsideration or full Board review were denied. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the causal link between claimant's employment and her occupational disease.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseHodgkin's DiseaseChemical ExposureTrichloroethyleneTrichloroethaneCausalityExpert TestimonyMedical OpinionBoard Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2002

Pelli v. St. Luke's Memorial Hospital Center

The claimant, a cytology technician, sought workers' compensation benefits for an occupational disease involving toxoplasmosis and xylene exposure. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the claim, but the employer's carrier appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board, after consulting an impartial specialist who found no evidence of toxoplasmosis and determining xylene exposure was within acceptable limits, denied the claim. The claimant then appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial, citing substantial evidence and confirming the Board's discretionary authority to review the WCLJ's decision despite a procedural challenge.

occupational diseasetoxoplasmosisxylene exposureworkers' compensation benefitscausally related disabilitysubstantial evidenceBoard reviewuntimely appealcredibilityimpartial medical examination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Rhode Island

LARSEN, Justice, concurring. I concur with the majority, but write to add an additional compelling reason the time of an employee’s “first distinct manifestation” of occupational disease should control carrier liability. If we held that the last injurious exposure controlled, it would create a situation where carriers could avoid liability for occupational disease by simply cancelling worker’s compensation coverage while workers remained exposed to an injurious substance. If a carrier learns early of a disease common to an industry, it could thus avoid paying the majority of claims for that disease. This situation could have disastrous effects in industries where occupational diseases have a lengthy onset, for example those where workers develop asbestosis and silicosis after many years of exposure. The majority opinion is in harmony with the general rule, frequently recited, that the Worker’s Compensation Act should be liberally construed in the worker’s favor. Attaching carrier liability to the first distinct manifestation of an occupational disease is not only compatible with the general law in this area, it also avoids the potential for a carrier’s escape from liability by canceling coverage in a workplace where the potential for numerous occupational disease claims exist. For this reason, as well as those cited in the majority opinion, I concur.

occupational diseasecarrier liabilityworker's compensationasbestosissilicosisinsurancestatutory interpretation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lockett v. HB Zachry Co.

This case concerns two separate wrongful death claims stemming from alleged occupational benzene exposure. The Lockett heirs sued Pharmacia Corporation (Monsanto), H.B. Zachry Company, and Union Carbide, asserting that benzene exposure at their work sites caused Clifford Lockett's death from acute myelogenous leukemia. Concurrently, the Jackson heirs brought claims against Rohm and Haas, linking Evelyn Jackson's death to occupational benzene exposure. The trial court granted summary judgments for all defendants. The appellate court affirmed these judgments, concluding that the Lockett heirs provided no evidence of Lockett's benzene exposure at the defendants' facilities. Furthermore, the court found the Texas Labor Code barred the Jackson heirs' negligence claim against Rohm and Haas, classifying Evelyn Jackson as a "borrowed servant," and upheld the summary judgment on their gross negligence claim due to lack of evidence of conscious indifference to risk.

Wrongful DeathOccupational ExposureBenzeneAcute Myelogenous LeukemiaSummary JudgmentCausationToxic TortBorrowed ServantWorkers' Compensation ActGross Negligence
References
30
Case No. 7250/00, 491/00, 6197/00, 11473/99
Regular Panel Decision

Ballard v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

The case involves motions for consolidation and severance of four personal injury actions stemming from asbestos exposure at Eastman Kodak Company. The plaintiffs sought to consolidate the Ballard (7250/00) and Cooros (491/00) cases, and separately, the Duemmel (6197/00) and Keller (11473/99) cases. Defendants CBS Corporation, R.E. Hebert and Company, Inc., and Rochester Industrial Insulation, Inc., opposed consolidation, with the latter also moving for severance. Presiding Judge Raymond E. Cornelius, J., reviewed criteria for consolidation in mass tort asbestos litigation, including common worksite, occupation, exposure time, disease type, and plaintiff status (living/deceased). The court denied the consolidation of Ballard and Cooros, finding undue prejudice due to differing diseases and direct/indirect exposure among deceased and living claimants. Similarly, the court denied the full consolidation of Duemmel and Keller but granted severance for the deceased Pschirrer claimant from the other Duemmel plaintiffs, allowing his claim to be consolidated with the Keller case due to similarities in occupation and indirect exposure.

Asbestos LitigationCase ConsolidationCase SeverancePersonal InjuryMass TortPrejudice ArgumentCPLR 602(a)CPLR 603MesotheliomaAsbestosis
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zivitz v. Zivitz Bros.

Claimant, a butcher, developed acute lobar pneumonia in September of 1974 due to daily exposure to cold refrigerators. Attempts to return to work led to a chronic pulmonary disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board found this to be an occupational disease as a result of repeated exposure to cold refrigerated air in his employment. The employer and its carrier appealed this decision, arguing the claimant did not suffer an occupational disease. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the claimant suffered an occupational disease.

Occupational DiseaseLobar PneumoniaChronic Pulmonary DiseaseCold ExposureButcherWorkers' Compensation Board AppealAffirmed DecisionEmployment-Related IllnessMedical CausationAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 530398
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Matter of Usewicz v. Nozbestos Constr. Corp.

This case concerns Zdzislaw Usewicz, who had established workers' compensation claims, including one for a World Trade Center injury and another for an occupational disease due to lead exposure. While receiving benefits for the WTC claim, his request for lost wage benefits under the occupational disease claim was denied because his cessation of employment was found unrelated to lead exposure. After attempting to re-enter the labor market, he again sought these benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, finding he failed to demonstrate a causal link between his lead exposure and an adverse effect on his earning capacity or ability to find work, especially given other disabling conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationLead ExposureOccupational DiseaseLost WagesReattachment to Labor MarketPermanent Partial DisabilityWorld Trade Center ClaimsCausal ConnectionEarning CapacityAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03839 [185 AD3d 1198]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2020

Matter of Renko v. New York State Police

Claimant, an auto body mechanic for the State Police, performed maintenance on vehicles exposed to World Trade Center toxins. After being diagnosed with prostate cancer, he filed a workers' compensation claim, alleging a causal link to the toxin exposure. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and Board initially disallowed the claim, finding it did not meet WTC provisions, lacked sufficient medical evidence for an occupational disease, and was time-barred if considered an accidental injury. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the Board erred in rejecting the occupational disease claim, as the toxin exposure derived from the nature of the claimant's work. The court also found the occupational disease claim timely and remitted the matter to the Board for a determination on causal relationship.

Occupational DiseaseWorld Trade Center ExposureProstate CancerCausal RelationshipStatute of LimitationsTimeliness of ClaimAppellate ReviewRemittalToxin ExposureAuto Body Mechanic
References
5
Case No. 2020-03-0243
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2020

Watkins, Michael v. G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc.

Michael Watkins, an employee, and G.UB.MK Constructors, Inc., the employer, reached an agreement to dismiss the employee's workers' compensation claim without prejudice. The claim involved alleged occupational exposure illnesses and injuries from Watkins' work as a commercial truck driver between 2011 and 2019. The parties disputed the compensability of these occupational exposures and illnesses. However, they stipulated that Watkins has a pending third-party tort suit related to these claims and is currently working full-time without restrictions. The dismissal allows Watkins to refile his claim in the future if he becomes incapacitated due to an occupational illness proven to be more than 50% related to his work for the employer. The Court taxed a filing fee of $150.00 to G.UB.MK, to be paid within five business days, and mandated the submission of an SD-2 form.

occupational illnessworkers' compensationdismissalwithout prejudicetruck drivervocationalthird-party claimT.C.A.stipulatedcompensability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lachowicz v. Albany Medical Center Hospital

The case involves an appeal by the employer and its carrier from a Workmen's Compensation Board decision. The Board determined that the claimant, a machinist's helper, contracted pulmonary tuberculosis as an occupational disease due to exposure on contaminated equipment at the employer hospital. The central issue was whether there was substantial evidence to support this finding. The court noted evidence of the claimant working in contagious wards and repairing equipment like suction machines used for tuberculosis patients. Despite arguments about sterilization, the Board accepted the claimant's account of "dirty" machines, and with substantial medical evidence of causal relationship, the court affirmed the Board's decision.

Occupational DiseaseTuberculosisMachinist's HelperHospital WorkerContaminated EquipmentCausal RelationshipWorkmen's Compensation BoardAppealSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion Conflict
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,513 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