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
Nov 06, 2012

Claim of Smith v. Oneida Ltd.

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning her husband's death benefits. In 1991, the decedent sustained a compensable lung injury, leading to permanent partial disability and continuous workers' compensation benefits until his death in September 2010. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed that the death was causally related to his work-related illness, awarding death benefits to the claimant. The self-insured employer and its claims administrator appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing that a compensable illness need not be the sole cause of death, only a contributing factor. Evidence included the death certificate listing sepsis and respiratory failure, and a C-64 medical report from the decedent's long-term physician stating the death was directly or indirectly caused by the work-related illness.

death benefitscausal relationshipoccupational illnessrespiratory failuresepsispermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation Board appealmedical report evidencecontributing factor
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2001

In re Trebor UU.

Respondent, the mother of two sons, Trebor (born in 1992) and Tahran (born in 1994), appealed an order from the Family Court of Clinton County which terminated her parental rights on the grounds of mental illness. The children had been in the care and custody of the petitioner since December 1998, following a prior finding of neglect. In October 2000, the petitioner filed a petition to terminate parental rights. The Family Court determined that respondent suffered from a mental illness, as defined by Social Services Law § 384-b (6) (a), rendering her unable to provide proper and adequate care for her children for the present and foreseeable future. Respondent challenged the expert testimony's methodology and the sufficiency of evidence regarding her future incapacity. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the expert testimony was sufficiently based and that there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent's mental illness prevented her from caring for her children, despite conflicting expert opinions on future improvement.

Parental Rights TerminationMental Illness (Parent)Family Court ActSocial Services LawExpert TestimonyClinical PsychologyPersonality DisorderAppellate DecisionChild WelfareForeseeability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vazquez v. Orange County Rehabilitation Center

Plaintiff's ward was allegedly sexually assaulted by defendant Lewis while engaged in piecework at a sheltered workshop operated by Occupations. Defendants Occupations and Lewis asserted workers' compensation coverage as affirmative defenses. The court held that claims occurring before July 22, 1989, when Mental Hygiene Law § 33.09 (c) excluded sheltered workshop participants from workers' compensation, are not subject to the defense. For claims after July 22, 1989, when the law was amended to allow coverage if elected, the issue of workers' compensation coverage is referred to the Workers' Compensation Board. Defendant Orange County Department of Mental Health's motion for summary judgment was granted due to lack of evidence linking them to the incident or supervision of Occupations.

sexual assaultsheltered workshopworkers' compensationsummary judgmentaffirmative defensestatutory constructionjurisdictionMental Hygiene Lawamendmentnegligence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kenneth V.

This is an appeal from a Family Court order that found respondent August V., Ill neglected his children. The proceeding was initiated by the petitioner, alleging neglect due to the parents' refusal to accept intensive counseling for two children exhibiting aggressive behavior, including wielding a knife. The Family Court initially found the father neglected all seven children. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no evidence of parental misconduct by the father. The court determined that treatment recommendations were not directly communicated to the father, and he was unaware of the escalated fighting. Consequently, the petition against August V., Ill was dismissed due to insufficient proof of neglect.

NeglectChild protectionParental misconductFamily lawChild welfareAbuseErie CountyAppellate reviewParental responsibilityMental health services
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Konieczny v. Butterflake Shop

Claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 8, 1977, which ruled that he did not suffer from an occupational disease. The claimant, employed as a baker, was diagnosed with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthmatic bronchitis, and emphysema, following a history of heavy smoking. The record contained conflicting medical evidence regarding the link between his employment and his condition. The court affirmed the Board's determination, holding that when medical proof is contradictory, the question of occupational disease is one of fact for the Board, and their finding was supported by substantial evidence, particularly Dr. Riley's testimony.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseAsthmatic BronchitisEmphysemaConflicting Medical EvidenceQuestion of FactSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical Testimony
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a car inspector, experienced incapacitating neck, back, and leg pain in 2010, following non-work-related automobile accidents in 1988 and 2003. He sought workers’ compensation benefits, arguing his physical and psychiatric conditions were an occupational disease due to repetitive work tasks. Although the employer failed to timely file a notice of controversy, precluding them from submitting evidence on the course of employment, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and Board disallowed the claim, deeming the treating physicians' causation opinions incredible. The Appellate Division affirmed, stating the claimant still bore the burden of proving a causal link, and the Board was justified in rejecting the medical evidence as incredible, thus supporting the finding of no causally related occupational disease.

Occupational DiseaseCausationMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewNotice of ControversyBurden of ProofCredibilityRepetitive TasksSpinal Problems
References
7
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

Claim of Estrada v. Peepels Mechanical Corp.

The claimant's case was established for occupational disease resulting in bilateral hearing loss. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined the date of disablement and, after initial discharge, reinstated the State Insurance Fund (Fund) to produce an apportionment report between occupational disease and traumatic hearing loss. The Fund appealed this decision. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently found the Fund was not the proper party as it did not cover the employer on the date of disablement and reversed the order for the apportionment report. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier then appealed the Board's decision. The higher court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that a claim for traumatic hearing loss was never formally made or pending before the Board.

Occupational DiseaseBilateral Hearing LossApportionmentDate of DisablementWorkers' Compensation CarrierState Insurance FundBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewTraumatic Hearing LossWCLJ Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Babyak v. Board of Education

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on April 17, 1980, which determined his disability was not a compensable occupational disease. Despite medical evidence confirming total incapacity as a teacher, the Board found no causal link between his occupation and illness, relying on the testimony of the insurance carrier's psychiatrist, Dr. Lake. The claimant argued the employer's actions created a stressful environment leading to his mental deterioration. The court, finding substantial evidence that the disability was neither caused nor aggravated by employment, affirmed the Board's decision.

Occupational DiseaseMental HealthCausationPsychiatric EvaluationTeacher DisabilityWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewMedical Evidence AdmissibilityStress-Related DisabilityBoard Decision Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Evelyn B.

The petitioner initiated proceedings to terminate the parental rights of the respondent, mother of Evelyn B., alleging mental illness or retardation after Evelyn B. was adjudicated neglected. The Family Court, Clinton County, terminated parental rights, relying on testimony from a court-appointed clinical psychologist who diagnosed the respondent with an untreatable learning disorder and mixed personality disorder, rendering her unable to provide proper care. The respondent appealed, presenting testimony from her treating therapist suggesting potential improvement. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination due to the respondent's mental illness and upholding the Family Court's discretion in crediting the court-appointed psychologist over the respondent's therapist, whose expert qualification was also appropriately denied.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewClinical PsychologyForensic EvaluationPersonality DisorderLearning DisorderExpert Witness Credibility
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 755 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