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

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fraser v. 301-52 Townhouse Corp.

Plaintiffs, former residents of a cooperative apartment building owned by 301-52 Townhouse Corp., sought damages for personal injuries, including respiratory problems, rash, and fatigue, allegedly caused by dampness and mold. The defendants moved for summary judgment and preclusion of expert evidence. A Frye hearing was held to assess the general acceptance of plaintiffs' causation theory. The motion court granted the defendants' motion, precluding expert evidence and dismissing the personal injury claims, a decision that was upheld upon reargument and renewal. The appellate court affirmed, stating that association does not equate to causation and that plaintiffs failed to establish the general acceptance of their theory, specific causation, or reliable measurements of mold levels. The court also found good cause for the defendants' delayed motion for summary judgment.

Frye HearingExpert EvidenceCausationMold ExposureDampnessPersonal Injury ClaimSummary Judgment AffirmedScientific ReliabilityMedical Literature ReviewDifferential Diagnosis
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2006

Lopez v. Gem Gravure Co.

The case concerns an appeal from an order that, upon renewal, vacated a prior grant of summary judgment dismissing a personal injury complaint against chemical manufacturers. The plaintiff alleged end-stage renal failure due to chemical exposure at work. The Supreme Court of Kings County initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact regarding causation. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, holding that the plaintiff's experts provided sufficient evidence to create a factual dispute on causation, rejected arguments regarding expert qualifications, and found the failure-to-warn claim not preempted by federal standards. The dissenting opinion argued for reversing and reinstating summary judgment, contending the plaintiff's experts lacked proper credentials and their theories of causation were scientifically unreliable and speculative.

Personal InjuryToxic TortSummary JudgmentCausationExpert TestimonyRenal FailureChemical ExposureOccupational MedicineAppellate ReviewCredibility
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.

This case involves an unnamed plaintiff diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) who sued several defendants, including Mobil Oil Corporation, Island Transportation Corporation, and Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc., alleging occupational exposure to benzene caused his illness. The defendants moved in limine to preclude the plaintiff's expert testimony on medical causation and for summary judgment, arguing the causation theory was unreliable. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied these motions. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff's experts failed to quantify benzene exposure and establish a scientifically reliable causal connection. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.

Medical CausationToxic ExposureBenzeneAcute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML)Expert Testimony AdmissibilityFrye StandardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewOccupational HazardScientific Reliability
References
25
Case No. SJO 238655 SJO 238656 SJO 238657
Regular
Apr 02, 2008

JAMES BEENE vs. ANDERSON CHEVROLET/AUTONATION, INC., ACE-USA, UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award because the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion was based on an incorrect legal theory regarding industrial causation. The Board found that the AME's opinion that the applicant's vascular condition was not industrially caused or aggravated was not substantial evidence, requiring further development of the record. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for the AME to provide a supplemental opinion on whether the vascular condition was industrially caused or a consequence of the admitted injury.

workers compensationindustrial injuryvascular systemagreed medical evaluatorAMEreconsiderationtemporary disability indemnityTDIlien claimsubrogation
References
15
Case No. ADJ4142754 (AHM 0142785) ADJ6726440
Regular
Sep 05, 2013

Joshua Hubbard vs. United Parcel Service, Liberty Mutual Insurance

This case concerns Joshua Hubbard's workers' compensation claims for a cardiac arrest and alleged cumulative trauma. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the decision to deny Hubbard's claims. The WCJ's report, adopted by the Board, found no medical evidence supported either a cumulative trauma injury or that the specific cardiac arrest arose out of employment. The medical opinions cited by the applicant were found insufficient to establish causation, lacking definitive information regarding work hours and applicable medical theories.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedCardiac ArrestCourse of EmploymentArising Out Of EmploymentCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryMedical EvidenceDr. Dimmick
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1996

Hallahan v. Ashland Chemical Co.

Plaintiff William Hallaban, diagnosed with granulocytic leukemia, commenced a products liability action, alleging workplace chemical exposure as the cause. During discovery, defendants sought to depose plaintiffs' expert witnesses, physician Stewart Silvers and chemist Harold Zeliger, citing "special circumstances" due to the alleged novelty of their causation theories and a change in Silvers' diagnosis from acute to chronic granulocytic leukemia. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion, finding no special circumstances. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, stating that the defendants' claims of "novel, unorthodox and unsupported" expert opinions did not constitute special circumstances for an oral examination of the experts before trial, especially as defendants had access to Silvers' medical records.

Products LiabilityExpert Witness DiscoverySpecial CircumstancesGranulocytic LeukemiaChemical ExposureMedical DiagnosisCPLR DiscoveryAppellate ReviewCausation TheoriesFrye Hearing Standard
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2016

Castorina v. A.C. & S.

This case involves a strict products liability claim centered on a failure-to-warn theory, brought by the plaintiffs, representing the decedent Robert Castorina, against Burnham LLC and other entities. The plaintiffs alleged that Castorina's lung cancer and death resulted from asbestos exposure due to the defendants' products. The pivotal legal question was the application of the 'heeding presumption' in New York law—whether it should be presumed that Castorina would have heeded an asbestos warning if one had been provided. Justice Jaffe's opinion meticulously analyzes various state and federal precedents concerning this presumption. The court ultimately concluded that New York State law does not mandate a blanket jury instruction on the heeding presumption, especially when the decedent had the opportunity to testify or present evidence on the matter, and no such evidence was offered. Consequently, the court granted Burnham LLC's motion for a directed verdict, dismissing the action against it due to the plaintiffs' failure to establish proximate causation.

Asbestos LitigationStrict Products LiabilityFailure to WarnProximate CausationHeeding PresumptionBurden of ProofTrial Order of DismissalJury InstructionDecedent PlaintiffCausation Element
References
20
Case No. LBO 0340807
En Banc
Jun 17, 2005

LISA SIMMONS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board holds that a utilization review report is admissible for the limited purpose of showing a dispute over industrial causation has arisen, but not to determine causation itself; the defendant must then follow the AME/QME process to resolve the causation dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationEn Banc DecisionUtilization ReviewMedical NecessityCausationLabor Code section 4610Labor Code section 4062Agreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical Evaluator
References
11
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,010 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