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
Jun 07, 2001

Claim of Hosmer v. Emerson Power Transmission

In 1972, the claimant began working for an employer, assembling industrial chains coated with molykote, a black powdery lubricant. By 1998, she developed respiratory problems, leading to a diagnosis of severe sinusitis and airway irritation, and stopped working in June 1999. She filed for workers' compensation, initially established for accident, notice, and causal relationship, then modified by the Workers' Compensation Board for occupational disease involving sinusitis and/or airway irritation superimposed on a preexisting allergic sensitivity due to molykote exposure. The employer appealed, arguing a lack of scientific basis for causal connection. The court affirmed the Board's decision, relying on medical testimony that molykote exposure was a significant factor in her symptoms, and that it aggravated a previously dormant allergic condition.

Occupational DiseaseSinusitisAirway IrritationMolykote ExposureCausal RelationshipPreexisting ConditionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical Opinion ConflictAppellate ReviewEmployer Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2000

Cole v. Uni-Marts, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff who alleged discriminatory discharge by Uni-Marts under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL) due to termination for severe sinusitis. Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman issued a Report and Recommendation, suggesting partial grant and partial denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. District Judge Arcara, after reviewing objections and hearing oral arguments, adopted these findings. The court determined that while plaintiff's sinusitis did not meet the ADA's definition of 'disability,' it did under the broader NYHRL. Additionally, a factual dispute regarding the FMLA's 'as soon as practicable' notice requirement precluded summary judgment on that claim.

DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationADAFMLANYHRLSummary JudgmentSinusitisMedical LeaveEmployment LawPretext
References
54
Case No. SAC 0332586
Regular
Jan 03, 2008

DAVID A. BELL vs. AGRAQUEST, INC., GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's findings. The WCJ determined that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his sinus and immune system, and that his claim was barred by the statute of limitations due to late filing after termination. The Board found the medical evidence did not support industrial causation and that the applicant's claim was untimely under Labor Code sections 5405, 5409, and 3600(a)(10).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardindustrial injurycumulative traumasinushumoral immune systemstatute of limitationsLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)presumption of compensability
References
28
Case No. SJO 0252147, SJO 0265611
Regular
Feb 27, 2008

HAL McKAY vs. CITY OF MONTEREY

This case concerns a firefighter seeking workers' compensation for multiple injuries, including a back, hips, gastrointestinal, and hearing impairment, as well as a prior sinus injury. The defendant sought to apportion the awarded permanent disability based on an earlier stipulated award for a cervical spine injury. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that apportionment was not appropriate because the defendant failed to demonstrate overlap between the prior subjective disability and the current work-preclusion-based disability.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedApportionmentLabor Code Sections 46634664Cumulative TraumaIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFirefighterStipulated Award
References
2
Case No. ADJ13173690
Regular
Feb 07, 2023

CHRISTOPHE LELONG vs. BEVERLY HILLS POLICE DEPARTMENT, CORVEL

This case involves a police officer diagnosed with a sinus and respiratory infection caused by *Citrobacter koseri*, a bacteria transmissible through blood. The applicant sustained symptoms during his employment, triggering the presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.8. The defendant challenged the presumption, arguing the bacteria's transmission was uncertain and not solely blood-borne. However, the Board affirmed the initial award, finding the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof to rebut the presumption, as the bacteria is capable of being carried or transmitted by blood.

Labor Code 3212.8blood-borne infectious diseasepresumption of industrial causationCitrobacter koseripolice officeroccupational exposuresinus infectionrespiratory systemindustrial injuryrebuttal of presumption
References
10
Case No. ADJ7927883
Regular
May 22, 2015

JEFF JANZEN vs. CITY OF COSTA MESA, COSTA MESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

This case involves a fire captain's cumulative trauma claim for injuries to multiple body parts, including sinuses, lungs, and back. The employer, City of Costa Mesa, argued the claim was time-barred under Labor Code §5412. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board upheld the administrative law judge's decision, finding the applicant lacked knowledge of the cumulative nature of his injury until consulting an attorney. Therefore, the Board determined the statute of limitations did not bar the claim, as his disability was not known to be industrially caused until shortly before filing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJEFF JANZENCITY OF COSTA MESAPermissibly Self-InsuredFindings Award and Orderindustrial injurysinuseslungsskinneck
References
3
Case No. ADJ3321482 (SAC 0347549)
Regular
May 29, 2012

MARYLOU SMITH vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for sinus injuries allegedly caused by workplace mold exposure. The defendant, County of Sacramento, sought reconsideration after an administrative law judge found the injury AOE/COE, relying on the applicant's treating physician's opinion. The defendant argued that the agreed medical examiner's opinion should have prevailed and that there was insufficient evidence of a materially greater workplace mold exposure. The majority of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the treating physician's opinion persuasive and sufficiently supported by medical evidence.

Agreed Medical ExaminerCausationMold ExposureFungal SinusitisIndustrial InjuryOccupational NexusMedical ProbabilitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wachtler v. AT&T

The claimant, an office worker, developed a sinus infection and later pneumonia, progressing to asthma, which he attributed to secondhand smoke in his workplace. He retired in June 1995 and filed a workers' compensation claim. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury work-related, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, crediting the employer’s physician who stated no causal link. The claimant appealed this reversal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the claimant’s asthma was not caused or permanently aggravated by his work environment, as the Board was free to credit the employer's medical testimony.

Workers' CompensationAsthmaSecondhand SmokeWorkplace InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceOccupational DiseaseRespiratory Illness
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Ricciardi v. Leather

The claimant, a machine worker, suffered sinus tarsi syndrome due to repetitive work tasks. Initially, C.N.A. Insurance Company defended the claim based on a March 1997 disablement date. However, after a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a November 1998 disablement date, CNA sought to shift responsibility to EBI/Royal and SunAlliance. The Workers’ Compensation Board estopped CNA from disclaiming coverage by applying the doctrine of laches. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding insufficient evidence that EBI suffered actual prejudice due to CNA's delay in raising the coverage issue, and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseSinus Tarsi SyndromeRepetitive Strain InjuryFoot InjuryInsurance Coverage DisputeDate of DisablementDoctrine of LachesEstoppelPrejudice
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1999

Claim of Taylor v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

A customer service representative with a history of multiple chemical sensitivity, asthma, rhino sinusitis, and irritable bowel filed two claims for workers' compensation benefits. Her conditions worsened after exposure to roof tar fumes in 1993 and insecticide (Dursban) fumes in 1995, eventually leading to her inability to work. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined she was permanently, totally disabled due to these exposures and awarded benefits. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the conditions were diseases, not accidental injuries, and challenging the causation finding. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, citing precedents that exacerbation of preexisting conditions by workplace chemical fumes constitutes an accidental injury and finding substantial evidence in claimant's and a physician's testimony.

Chemical ExposureMultiple Chemical SensitivityAsthmaRhino SinusitisIrritable BowelPermanent Total DisabilityAccidental InjuryExacerbation of Preexisting ConditionWorkplace FumesCausation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 12 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