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 29, 2001

Claim of Caiazza v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The claimant, a former machinist, developed skin cancer in 1990 and later lung and brain cancers in 2000, attributed to occupational exposure. Following his retirement in 2001, the employer conceded the lung and brain cancers were consequential to the initial skin cancer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant permanently totally disabled and awarded weekly benefits of $300, based on the original skin cancer disablement date of February 27, 1986. The claimant sought Workers' Compensation Board review, arguing for an April 24, 2000 disablement date (diagnosis of lung/brain cancers) to receive higher benefits of $400/week. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, citing the claimant's prior stipulation to modify the original claim for consequential injuries and established law that such awards are measured by rates at the time of the original injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it was not unreasonable to rely on the claimant's agreement and that the award rate was supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDate of DisablementBenefit Rate CalculationConsequential InjurySkin CancerLung CancerBrain CancerPermanent Total DisabilityAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2000

Ramnarine v. Memorial Center for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jagdeo Ramnarine, an employee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, suffered a laceration at the Memorial Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases. He subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit. The defendant, Memorial Center, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as both the Center and the Hospital operate as a single integrated employer despite their separate legal entities. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court found substantial evidence supporting the integrated employer argument, thereby limiting the plaintiff's remedy to workers' compensation benefits and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntegrated Employer DoctrineSummary Judgment ReversalNegligence ClaimCross Claims DismissedCorporate Alter EgoCommon ControlBronx CountyAppellate DivisionLabor Law
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02445 [237 AD3d 1500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Wendy Cooper, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cooper was terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was later declared null and void in an unrelated case. The arbitrator, however, upheld Cooper's termination based on the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, reinstating Cooper, finding it irrational and against public policy. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirming the arbitration award. It held that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the award, as petitioners failed to prove it violated a strong public policy or was irrational under CPLR 7511 (b), reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards.

Arbitration AwardVacaturPublic PolicyIrrationalityCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitation
References
9
Case No. ADJ8249857
Regular
Jan 19, 2016

LARRY ADAIR vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award for skin cancer, arguing the permanent disability rating was insufficient and jurisdiction should be reserved due to the progressive nature of the disease. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the original award but amending it to include a finding that the applicant is entitled to the presumption of compensability for skin cancer under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Board found no substantial evidence that the applicant's skin cancer was an insidious progressive disease warranting jurisdiction reservation, as it had been excised and declared permanent and stationary.

ADJ8249857Petition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings and Awardarising out of and in the course of employmentAOE/COEpermanent disabilityreservation of jurisdictionsubstantial medical evidenceprimary treating physicianpanel qualified medical evaluator
References
0
Case No. Index No. 161136/17 Appeal No. 15141 Case No. 2021-02236
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Quiroz v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jose Alfonso Perez Quiroz, a construction worker, sustained injuries after falling from an unstable scaffold at a site managed by Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases and general contractor Turner Construction Company. He initiated legal action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Quiroz's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the unsecured scaffold to be a proximate cause of his fall. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as academic.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment AppealPlaintiff LiabilityDefendant LiabilityProximate CausationRecalcitrant Worker Defense
References
17
Case No. ADJ8193963
Regular
Mar 28, 2018

JERRY HUNTER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by the defendant, the State Compensation Insurance Fund, concerning a workers' compensation award for Jerry Hunter. The defendant contested the finding that skin cancer was part of the original stipulated injury and challenged the permanent disability rating based on the treating physician's opinion. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the Administrative Law Judge's report. The Board affirmed that the skin cancer was correctly considered part of the original cumulative injury and that the treating physician's opinion constituted substantial evidence for the permanent disability rating.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkin CancerCumulative InjuryLabor Code Section 5803Petition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityGood CauseStipulations with Request for AwardTreating PhysicianPermanent Disability
References
8
Case No. ADJ6836868
Regular
Feb 03, 2012

STEPHEN SEAVELLO vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

This case concerns a deputy sheriff diagnosed with skin cancer, with a presumption that it arose from his employment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed the administrative law judge's finding that the skin cancer was an "insidious disease process" and the subsequent reservation of jurisdiction over permanent disability. The Board determined that the applicant's condition was found to be permanent and stationary, and not a progressive insidious disease, thus precluding jurisdiction beyond the statutory five-year limit for amendments. Consequently, the original award of 4% permanent disability and need for future medical treatment was reinstated, but without the reservation of jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStephen SeavelloCounty of San DiegoSkin CancerDeputy SheriffPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentInsidious Disease ProcessReservation of JurisdictionLabor Code Section 5804
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKillop v. McKillop Funeral Livery, Inc.

This case involves appeals from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant’s decedent who developed an occupational disease. The decedent, a hearse and limousine driver, suffered from epidermedysplasia verrucaformis (EV), a rare skin disorder. A doctor testified that cumulative sunlight exposure, rather than recreational exposure, caused the EV lesions to become cancerous, noting a higher incidence on the sun-exposed left side of his face. The Board found a causal relationship between employment and the skin cancer, concluding it was an occupational disease. The court affirmed these decisions, emphasizing that conflicting medical opinions are within the Board's purview to resolve.

Occupational DiseaseSkin CancerEpidermedysplasia VerrucaformisSunlight ExposureCausationMedical OpinionWorkers' CompensationAppealsDriverCarcinomas
References
7
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. ADJ9708192
Regular
Jul 05, 2018

BRIAN DANSKIN vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, PEMISSIDLY SELF-INSURED, CITY OF CYPRESS, PEMISSIDLY SELF-INSURED

This case involves Brian Danskin, who claimed industrial cumulative trauma in the form of skin cancer/melanoma sustained during his employment as a police officer and District Attorney's investigator. The defendant, County of Riverside, sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding that Danskin was entitled to the Labor Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption for his investigator role. The defendant argued the investigator position didn't qualify for the presumption and that the injury predated his employment with the county. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report, finding that Danskin's extensive law enforcement duties as an investigator were central to his role and qualified him for the cancer presumption under section 3212.1.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBrian DanskinCounty of RiversideCity of CypressPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJindustrial cumulative traumaskin cancermelanoma
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 247 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