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 LaRocca v. Univera Healthcare

The claimant, a coordination of benefits reviewer, sought workers' compensation benefits after experiencing symptoms like headaches and blurred vision due to pesticide exposure at work in 1995. She later experienced a severe recurrence of symptoms in October and November 1999 after exposure to fragrances, prompting her to file a claim in December 1999. Although initially awarded benefits, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling the claim was not timely filed under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, which mandates filing within two years of the accident. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, agreeing that the 1999 incidents were an exacerbation of the 1995 pesticide exposure, not separate accidents, and therefore the claim was untimely.

pesticide exposureworkers' compensation claimtimeliness of claimoccupational diseasetoxic encephalopathyfragrance sensitivitystatute of limitationsexacerbation of symptomsmedical testimonyBoard decision affirmed
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gannon v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

The claimant, a seasonal auditor, sought workers' compensation benefits due to alleged exposure to paint fumes, pesticides, and other airborne toxins at her workplace in Albany, resulting in symptoms like dizziness, heart palpitations, and later, upper airway irritation and liver damage. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled she suffered an accidental injury from paint fume exposure in September 1992 but found no continuing causally related disability. Medical experts testified that the claimant's symptoms were primarily manifestations of an anxiety disorder, not environmental contaminants, and that any effects from paint fumes would be short-lived. The decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was affirmed, as there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the claimant did not suffer from any continuing disability attributable to the accident or other alleged exposures.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityEnvironmental ContaminantsPaint Fumes ExposureAnxiety DisorderPsychiatric SymptomsLiver DamageMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. ADJ8157891
Regular
Apr 15, 2016

JESSE CASTELLON vs. ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL, ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a finding that pesticide exposure contributed to the applicant's lymphoma, diabetes, and hypertension. The defendant argued the relied-upon medical expert erred by discussing Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma instead of the applicant's diagnosed Hodgkin's Lymphoma. However, the Board found the expert's report sufficiently addressed Hodgkin's Lymphoma and its link to benzene exposure, incorporating the WCJ's reasoning. Therefore, the Board affirmed the original findings and denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factindustrial causationpesticide exposurelymphomadiabeteshypertensionsubstantial medical evidenceDr. Nachman Brautbar
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 1990

Sikes v. Chevron Companies

Gary Sikes, a former termite exterminator for T & R Pest Control, and his wife, initiated a negligence and strict products liability action against T & R, its president Anthony Ferrandino, and Chevron entities. Sikes claimed he suffered personal injuries due to prolonged exposure to chlordane, a pesticide allegedly manufactured by Chevron Chemical Company-Ortho Division. Both Chevron defendants and T & R/Ferrandino moved for summary judgment. The Chevron defendants argued they did not manufacture the specific chlordane used by Sikes, while T & R/Ferrandino contended Sikes was an employee, limiting his claims to workers' compensation. The Supreme Court initially denied these motions. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, granting summary judgment to all defendants, concluding that Sikes failed to provide sufficient evidence linking his exposure to Chevron's product and that his exclusive remedy against T & R and Ferrandino was indeed workers' compensation.

Personal InjuryProduct LiabilityNegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipChlordane ExposurePesticideToxic TortAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desmond-Americana v. Jorling

This case involves five CPLR article 78 proceedings and declaratory judgment actions challenging amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, which mandated multiple pesticide notification devices. The petitioners challenged these regulations, promulgated by the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, arguing the Commissioner exceeded his authority and that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) failed to comply with statutory procedures. The Appellate Court found two main issues: first, DEC failed to adhere to the mandatory time limits for filing regulations under the State Administrative Procedure Act, rendering the amendments ineffective. Second, DEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by issuing negative declarations without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), despite clear evidence of significant adverse environmental impacts, particularly on the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. Consequently, the court annulled all amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, declaring them invalid.

Administrative LawEnvironmental LawRegulatory ComplianceStatutory InterpretationState Administrative Procedure ActState Environmental Quality Review ActEnvironmental Impact StatementPesticide RegulationsIntegrated Pest ManagementAnnulment of Regulations
References
10
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Valenti v. Penn Plax Plastics

The claimant, exposed to asbestos between 1965 and 1972, developed asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, and lung cancer. His 1995 workers' compensation claim was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board, which found his lung cancer causally related to asbestos exposure occurring before July 1, 1974, thus falling under the 'dust disease' rule requiring total disability for compensation. The claimant appealed, arguing lung cancer is not a dust disease. The appellate court reversed and remitted the decision, clarifying that while lung cancer itself is not a dust disease, the pre-1974 restriction applies if it's causally related to a dust disease like asbestosis. The court noted the Board failed to make a specific finding on this causal link.

asbestos exposurelung cancerasbestosisworkers' compensationdust diseasetotal disabilitypartial disabilitycausationremittalappellate review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2013

Claim of Campione v. FMCS

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits due to alleged neurological injuries from workplace pesticide exposure. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the claim, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the court reviewed conflicting medical evidence. The employer's medical expert found no objective signs of injury, while claimant's experts' opinions relied heavily on subjective complaints. Deferring to the Board's evaluation of evidence and credibility, the court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination and affirmed the decision.

Workers' CompensationPesticide ExposureNeurological InjuryMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationSubjective ComplaintsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewCausally Related DisabilityBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2007

Granite State Insurance v. ACE American Reinsurance Co.

AIG, a cedent, sought reinsurance reimbursement from ACE, a reinsurer, for payments made to Castle & Cooke regarding pesticide exposure lawsuits. Initially, AIG disclaimed coverage under a Granite State policy, later reallocating payments from an exhausted National Union policy to the Granite State policy which ACE reinsured. ACE contested the claim, asserting the payment was ex gratia and not subject to the "follow the fortunes" doctrine, due to AIG's prior disclaimer and reallocation. The Supreme Court denied ACE's cross-motion for summary judgment, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court found that material questions of fact remained regarding whether AIG's actions constituted bad faith or an ex gratia payment, thereby precluding summary judgment for ACE.

Reinsurance disputeFollow the fortunes doctrineEx gratia payment exceptionBad faith exceptionSummary judgment denialInsurance coverageReinsurer liabilityCeding companyPolicy reallocationPesticide claims
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 597 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