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 Lachowicz v. Albany Medical Center Hospital

The case involves an appeal by the employer and its carrier from a Workmen's Compensation Board decision. The Board determined that the claimant, a machinist's helper, contracted pulmonary tuberculosis as an occupational disease due to exposure on contaminated equipment at the employer hospital. The central issue was whether there was substantial evidence to support this finding. The court noted evidence of the claimant working in contagious wards and repairing equipment like suction machines used for tuberculosis patients. Despite arguments about sterilization, the Board accepted the claimant's account of "dirty" machines, and with substantial medical evidence of causal relationship, the court affirmed the Board's decision.

Occupational DiseaseTuberculosisMachinist's HelperHospital WorkerContaminated EquipmentCausal RelationshipWorkmen's Compensation BoardAppealSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion Conflict
References
3
Case No. ADJ1451525 (VNO 0539093)
Regular
Aug 08, 2011

ALLAN ANDREWS vs. PREMIER WALL CONSTRUCTION, SELF-INSURERS SECURITY FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant alleged a cumulative trauma injury to his lungs due to tuberculosis exposure at work. While the applicant presented evidence of workplace exposure and a positive tuberculosis skin test, medical evidence was found insufficient to establish industrial causation. The Board rescinded the prior award and remanded the matter for further proceedings to develop the medical record. The primary goal is to clarify the nature of the injury, if any, from the work exposure.

ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCumulative TraumaTuberculosisPulmonary TuberculosisIndustrial CausationMedical EvidenceAgreed Medical ExaminerPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorChest X-rays
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Franco v. Peckham Industries, Inc.

The court affirmed a Board's decision, finding that the claimant's failure to appeal a determination not to amend the claim for consequential tuberculosis myeletis rendered the issue unpreserved. Regarding the claimant's work-related back injury, the Board's determination that the claimant had no further disability was supported by substantial evidence. The Board credited the opinions of orthopedist John Mitamurai and neurologist Sandra Caniciu, who both examined and treated the claimant. These medical experts opined that the claimant's present disability is not related to the workplace injury, but is solely due to a subsequent, unrelated tuberculosis myeletis condition. The court found that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence and should not be disturbed.

Appellate ReviewMedical EvidenceDisability DeterminationCausationTuberculosis MyeletisBack InjuryUnpreserved ClaimSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationOrthopedist Opinion
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gnoj v. City of New York

The plaintiff, a 65-year-old deceased kitchen worker, recovered a $135,000 verdict for personal injuries due to medical malpractice (failure to diagnose renal tuberculosis) at Bellevue Hospital. The defendant, City of New York, appealed citing untimely notice of claim, erroneous admission of expert testimony, and an excessive verdict. The court found the notice of claim's timeliness a jury question but deemed the verdict excessive and the admission of Dr. Wershub's testimony, an expert initially retained by the defendant, as prejudicial error. The judgment was reversed and a new trial directed.

Medical MalpracticeExpert Witness TestimonyAdmissibility of EvidenceTimeliness of Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawRenal TuberculosisJury Verdict ExcessiveNew TrialAppellate ReviewPretrial Settlement Conference
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal concerning the liability of the City of New York and its Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in responding to a suspected tuberculosis outbreak at Our Lady of Lourdes School. Plaintiffs, comprising students, teachers, and their families, initiated a personal injury action against the school entities and the municipal defendants, alleging negligence in notification and allowing the school to reopen. The Supreme Court granted a motion to dismiss claims against the City and Department based on governmental immunity. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that the city's actions were discretionary and thus protected by immunity, and that no special relationship, as defined by law, existed between the municipality and the plaintiffs to overcome this immunity.

Governmental ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityCommunicable Disease OutbreakTuberculosisPublic Health ResponseSpecial Relationship DoctrineDiscretionary ActMinisterial ActNegligencePersonal Injury
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of O'Shea v. City of Binghamton

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that rescinded an award for disability due to an aggravation of pre-existing tuberculosis from November 5, 1974, to December 30, 1975, and limited partial disability awards to June 3, 1976. The claimant contended the rescission was contradictory and medical evidence showed continuing disability. The court found that the board's rescission of benefits for the period of November 5, 1974, to December 30, 1975, was arbitrary and lacked substantial evidence, especially given medical reports and employer concessions regarding partial disability during that time. Consequently, the decision was modified by reversing the rescission of the referee’s award for that period and remitting the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Tuberculosis AggravationSmoke InhalationTemporary Total DisabilityPartial DisabilityCausal RelationMedical EvidenceArbitrary and CapriciousSubstantial EvidenceRemittalWorkers' Compensation Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Paider v. Park East Movers

An employer and its insurance carrier appealed a decision awarding a truck driver disability for pulmonary tuberculosis, found to be an occupational disease due to exposure to a co-worker in the truck cab. The court determined this was not an occupational hazard specific to truck driving, unlike situations where disease transmission occurs via instruments inherent to the job. Citing precedents like Harman and Buckley, the court reiterated that a co-worker, not the occupation itself, caused the disease. The decision differentiated the case from Mason and Hovancik, which involved transmission through job-specific tools like a telephone mouthpiece or a pipette. Consequently, the court reversed the board's decision and dismissed the claim, finding no "special hazard" attributable to a truck cab.

Occupational DiseaseTuberculosisTruck DriverCo-worker ExposureHazardInstrument of TransmissionWorkers' CompensationAppealDisease TransmissionEmployment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ogle v. State

This case involves a claimant who filed for medical malpractice and negligence against the State of New York, alleging that delayed treatment for tuberculosis during his incarceration led to paraplegia. The Court of Claims initially denied the State's motion to dismiss, applying the continuous treatment doctrine. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, asserting that the doctrine's application requires a relevant relationship between treating physicians or a continuous relationship between the claimant and initial physicians, rather than merely all providers being state employees. The court found questions of fact regarding the relevant relationship between the medical facilities involved (Ogdensburg, Samaritan, Upstate) that need to be determined by the Court of Claims. Therefore, the order of the Court of Claims was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings to determine the applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine.

medical malpracticenegligencecontinuous treatment doctrinetuberculosisspinal cord injuryparaplegiacorrectional facility inmatestatute of limitationsquestions of factappellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ellis v. Peter

This case addresses whether a physician owes a duty of care which extends to a patient's spouse who contracts tuberculosis due to the physician's alleged negligent failure to properly diagnose the disease in the patient. The plaintiffs, John and Joan Ellis, sued Dr. Sebastian A. Peter for medical malpractice. The wife, Joan Ellis, alleged negligence for failure to warn her about her husband's infectious condition. The court held that New York State law does not impose a statutory or common-law duty upon a physician for the benefit of those who may contract such a disease from the patient, as a physician's duty is ordinarily owed to the patient, not the community at large. Therefore, the order was reversed, the plaintiffs' motion to strike defenses was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the wife's second and fourth causes of action was granted.

medical malpracticephysician's duty of carenegligencecommunicable diseasetuberculosisforeseeabilitystatutory dutycommon lawpatient spousezone of risk
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Carson

The case concerns an inmate's pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Eighth Amendment violations due to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs by various DOCS employees. The plaintiff specifically claimed Administrative Nurse Joyce Carson forced him to take tuberculosis medication despite negative test results and disregarded his subsequent complaints of severe side effects, ultimately leading to vision impairment. Defendant Carson moved for summary judgment, asserting the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court granted Carson's motion, concluding that the plaintiff did not adequately grieve his specific claims against her and his arguments for excusing this failure were insufficient, resulting in the dismissal of claims against Carson with prejudice.

inmate rightsEighth Amendment violationdeliberate indifferencemedical negligencePrison Litigation Reform Actexhaustion of administrative remediessummary judgmentprison medical caretuberculosis treatmentadverse drug reactions
References
11
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