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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04322 [240 AD3d 1230]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2025

Skrzynski v. Akebono Brake Corp.

Joseph A. Skrzynski sued Akebono Brake Corporation and Ford Motor Company for personal injuries, specifically mesothelioma, resulting from asbestos exposure from friction products while working at an automobile dealership. The jury found Ford Motor Company liable for failing to warn about the asbestos hazards. On appeal, Ford challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both general and specific causation. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial evidence was legally sufficient to establish both that chrysotile asbestos from automotive brakes can cause peritoneal mesothelioma (general causation) and that plaintiff's exposure levels were sufficient to cause his illness (specific causation). A dissenting justice argued that plaintiff's experts offered insufficient evidence for both general and specific causation, particularly regarding the specific type of asbestos and the quantification of plaintiff's exposure.

Products LiabilityAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaFailure to WarnCausationGeneral CausationSpecific CausationAppellate ReviewJury VerdictExpert Testimony
References
16
Case No. No. 24
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2022

Francis Nemeth v. Brenntag North America

Plaintiff's spouse, Florence Nemeth, died from peritoneal mesothelioma after daily use of Desert Flower talcum powder, which plaintiff alleged contained asbestos supplied by defendant Whittaker, Clark & Daniels. A jury found the defendant liable, awarding damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium. However, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, dismissing the complaint against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. The Court ruled that plaintiff's expert testimony and scientific evidence were insufficient as a matter of law to establish specific causation in this toxic tort case. It emphasized that while precise quantification of exposure is not always necessary, sufficient exposure levels to the toxin, supported by generally accepted methodologies, must be demonstrated.

MesotheliomaAsbestos exposureToxic tortCausationExpert testimonySufficiency of evidenceTalcum powderProduct liabilityAppellate reviewScientific evidence
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC

Brenda Cornell sued 360 West 51st Street Corp. for personal injuries allegedly caused by indoor exposure to dampness and mold in her Manhattan apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding Cornell failed to prove general or specific causation under the Frye standard. The Appellate Division subsequently reversed this, suggesting Cornell's expert opinion had "some support" in scientific literature. However, the Court of Appeals, in this opinion, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Cornell failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court reiterated that scientific "association" does not equate to "causation" and found her expert's differential diagnosis insufficient due to lack of exposure quantification and inadequate ruling out of other causes. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was ultimately granted.

Mold ExposurePersonal InjuryCausationFrye StandardScientific EvidenceExpert Witness TestimonySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEnvironmental HealthDifferential Diagnosis
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. LBO 0377371
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

EDUBIJES TORREZ vs. RED HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, CHUBB SERVICES CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Chubb Insurance's petition for reconsideration, affirming the original finding that Edubijes Torrez sustained a cumulative trauma injury (leiomyosarcoma) due to chemical exposure as a groundskeeper. The Board found that despite the provision of protective gear in 1998, the applicant's exposure continued through his last year of employment, making Chubb, the insurer during that period, liable for the $100\%$ permanent disability award. Chubb's argument that exposure ceased in 1998 was rejected due to evidence of ineffective protective gear and continued exposure.

LeiomyosarcomaCumulative traumaLabor Code section 5500.5Injurious exposureRespirator protective gearLatency periodIndustrial chemical exposurePermanent disabilityGroundskeeperRed Hill Country Club
References
3
Case No. ADJ11721215
Regular
Mar 20, 2023

GLEN HODGES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns a firefighter's claim for melanoma under Labor Code section 3212.1, which presumes cancer is industrially caused. While the applicant raised the presumption through evidence of carcinogen exposure, the Appeals Board overturned the initial finding of industrial injury due to melanoma. The Board found the presumption was rebutted by expert medical opinion concluding the applicant's melanoma was not reasonably linked to industrial sun exposure, citing significant childhood sun exposure, tanning bed use, family history, and minimal workplace sun exposure to the affected area. The Board therefore granted reconsideration and amended the decision to exclude melanoma as an industrial injury, though actinic keratosis was still found to be industrially caused.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionrebutted presumptionqualified medical evaluatorindustrial injuryactinic keratosismelanomafirefightercarcinogenInternational Agency for Research on Cancer
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1998

Claim of Gardner v. Structure Tone of NY, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits, alleging asbestosis due to asbestos exposure during employment as an elevator operator at a construction site. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant partially disabled by asbestosis, an occupational disease, and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, primarily disputing the claimant's asbestos exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision after finding sufficient evidence of exposure and asbestosis. On further appeal, the employer argued that asbestosis was not inherent to an elevator operator's job, but the appellate court declined to consider this issue as it was not raised in the administrative appeal to the Board. The court also noted the employer abandoned the exposure issue by not raising it on the current appeal, thus affirming the Board's decision.

AsbestosisOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsElevator OperatorAppealAdministrative AppealJudicial ReviewPreservation of IssueWCLJ Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Pace v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp.

Raymond Balcerzak, an electrician, developed lung cancer and passed away, allegedly due to asbestos exposure during his nearly 50-year career. His lawsuit against various manufacturers, alleging product liability for his injuries, was removed to federal court. Several defendants moved for summary judgment, contending a lack of evidence connecting their specific products to Balcerzak's asbestos exposure. The Court granted summary judgment for Buffalo, Gardner Denver, Byron Jackson, Warren, and Square D, finding insufficient product identification or specific timing/location of exposure. However, the motion for summary judgment by Allen-Bradley was denied, as genuine issues of material fact remained regarding Balcerzak's exposure to asbestos from their arc chutes and contactor insulation.

Asbestos ExposureLung CancerWrongful DeathProducts LiabilitySummary JudgmentFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)Circumstantial EvidenceProduct IdentificationMaritime LawNew York Law
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 594 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