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

Ficken v. Vocational Education & Extension Board of Suffolk

The petitioner sought review of her employment termination as a secretary by the Vocational Education and Extension Board of the County of Suffolk (VEEB) and requested reinstatement with back pay. She argued that she was discharged without the procedural protections afforded to civil servants under Civil Service Law § 75. VEEB contended that the petitioner was not covered by these protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing her reinstatement and back pay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner's position, though designated 'unclassified' by Suffolk County, did not fit any category under Civil Service Law § 35, thus classifying it as 'classified' and entitling her to § 75 protections. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be denied these rights until a proper classification was established.

Civil Service LawEmployment TerminationReinstatementBack PayUnclassified ServiceClassified ServiceCivil Servant RightsDue ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingSuffolk County
References
5
Case No. ADJ7607362
Regular
Jun 28, 2016

GUILLERMO ANAYA vs. BAY AREA CARBIDE, VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a claim for industrial injury to the lungs, psyche, and diabetes resulting from exposure to metal dust. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding of total permanent disability under Labor Code section 4662(b). The Board found substantial medical evidence supported the applicant's total permanent disability despite the defendant's arguments regarding scheduled ratings and vocational expertise. A dissenting commissioner argued for further development of the record regarding vocational rehabilitation and future earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award And OrdersIndustrial InjuryLungsRespiratory SystemPsycheDiabetesTool HandlerTemporary Total Disability
References
16
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. ADJ6413644
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

JANICE HOWELL vs. NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS, dba COLE VOCATIONAL SERVICES, administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The petition also sought removal, which was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The underlying issues, such as an order compelling medical record production, are interlocutory procedural matters not subject to reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and recommendation, denying both reconsideration and removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightRemovalWCJ Report and RecommendationStipulationsOrder Compelling Production of RecordsDiscovery ProcessPrivacy
References
11
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. ADJ11184599, ADJ11184523
Regular
Feb 24, 2020

Gregory White vs. Sky 2 Collision Corporation, Illinois Midwest Insurance Company, Inc., National Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gregory White's petition for reconsideration of a $47\%$ permanent disability award. White argued he was permanently totally disabled due to vocational limitations, but the Board found substantial evidence supported his ability to benefit from vocational rehabilitation. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's finding that White was not permanently totally disabled and that his vocational expert's report was less persuasive than the defense vocational expert's. Issues regarding vocational costs were deferred pending a separate petition.

Cumulative traumaSpecific injuryLow back injuryLumbar spineBacterial infectionStreptoccocusLaminectomyPermanent disabilityVocational rehabilitationQualified injured worker
References
4
Case No. RDG 0095368; RDG 0095369; RDG 0095573; RDG 0126270
Regular
Sep 25, 2007

HENRY PHILLIPE vs. GOTTSCHALKS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow reimbursement for the applicant's vocational expert fees, reversing the WCJ's decision. The Board found it reasonable for the applicant to hire his own vocational expert to rebut the defendant's expert, especially given the passage of time since the original vocational feasibility report. Consequently, the defendant was ordered to reimburse the applicant's attorney for the $1,075.00 vocational expert cost.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationExpert Witness FeesVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 5811Qualified Rehabilitation Representative (QRR)LeBoeuf argumentAgreed Medical Examination (AME)Permanent DisabilityIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ6666562
Regular
Mar 04, 2011

ANGIE PADILLA vs. IRIDEX CORPORATION, AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who sustained industrial injury to her bilateral upper extremities and shoulders. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's decision primarily concerning the period of injurious exposure, permanent disability rating, and attorney fees. Ultimately, the Board amended the award to reflect a 57% permanent disability rating, reversing the WCJ's finding of 70% based on a review of vocational expert opinions and medical evaluations. Additionally, the Board reversed the WCJ's award of attorney fees under Labor Code section 4066, finding it inapplicable to a panel QME situation.

cumulative traumadate of injuryperiod of injurious exposurepermanent disabilityapportionmentattorney feeslabor code section 5412labor code section 5500.5labor code section 4066panel qualified medical evaluation
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00196 [179 AD3d 1263]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Castano v. Westchester Community Coll.

Aurelio Castano, a technical assistant and part-time teacher, filed a workers' compensation claim due to mold and chemical exposure, leading to reactive airway disease and fibromyalgia. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge classified him with a 78% loss of wage-earning capacity. A panel of the Workers' Compensation Board modified this to a 55% loss, considering his educational background and certifications. The full Board upheld this modification, and the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it adequately explained and supported by substantial evidence. The court considered conflicting medical opinions and Castano's vocational capabilities.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityFibromyalgia ClaimReactive Airway DiseaseMold Exposure InjuryVocational FactorsMedical Expert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate Division Third DepartmentWorkers' Compensation Board
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,167 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