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

Matt Dietz Co. v. Torres

This appeal arises from a judgment where a jury found that Matt Dietz Co. and Matt Dietz (Dietz collectively) negligently caused Modesto Torres' laryngeal cancer due to pesticide exposure, awarding Torres $6,000,000 in damages. Dietz appealed, arguing a lack of evidence for causation and negligence. The appellate court reviewed the scientific reliability of Torres' expert testimony, which relied on scientific studies and differential diagnosis. The court found no scientifically reliable evidence that pesticide exposure generally causes laryngeal cancer or that Torres' specific exposure levels were comparable to those in the studies. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a decision in favor of Dietz, concluding there was no evidence of proximate cause.

Pesticide exposureLaryngeal cancerNegligenceCausationExpert testimonyScientific reliabilityEpidemiological studiesDifferential diagnosisToxic tortAppellate review
References
14
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. 2015-02-0193, 2015-02-0183
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2015

Moore, Robin v. Ingles Markets, Inc.

In these consolidated interlocutory appeals, employees Robin Moore and Stephen Seiferth alleged respiratory injuries from pesticide exposure at Ingles Markets, Inc. The employer failed to provide a panel of physicians, leading to an expedited hearing where the trial court mandated a physician panel but denied temporary disability benefits. Ingles Markets appealed, disputing causation and injury dates, but provided no transcript or evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, presuming sufficient evidence, and remanded the cases for further proceedings.

Respiratory InjuriesPesticide ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsInterlocutory AppealsPanel of PhysiciansTemporary DisabilityCausationSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ProcedureConsolidated Cases
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 886 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