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. 2021 NY Slip Op 04626 [197 AD3d 518]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2021

D. S. v. Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources, P.C.

This case involves an appeal by the Port Jefferson School District from an order denying its motion to dismiss a personal injury complaint. The infant plaintiff, a special education student, was allegedly injured by a therapist, Vito Silecchia, during a behavioral therapy session. The plaintiffs sued the School District, among others, alleging Silecchia was an employee or agent. The District contended Silecchia was an independent contractor retained through Positive Behavior Support Consulting and Psychological Resources, P.C. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the dismissal motion, stating that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action and that documentary evidence did not conclusively establish an independent contractor relationship, given provisions in the agreement suggesting the District maintained some control over the services.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySchool District LiabilitySpecial EducationTherapist NegligenceCPLR 3211 (a) (1)
References
25
Case No. W2005-01334-CCA-R3-PD
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2006

Heck Van Tran v. State of Tennessee

The Petitioner, Heck Van Tran, sought to reopen his post-conviction petition to challenge his death penalty sentence, asserting he is mentally retarded. The lower court denied relief, prompting this appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he met the statutory definition of mental retardation, which requires a functional IQ of 70 or below, deficits in adaptive behavior, and manifestation of these deficits by age 18. The court acknowledged conflicting expert testimony but upheld the trial court's assessment of the unique circumstances of the Petitioner's background, including his limited English proficiency, history of institutionalization, and paranoid schizophrenia, which impacted the validity of standardized adaptive behavior tests. The court also cited the complex nature of the Petitioner's crime as evidence against a finding of mental retardation.

Mental RetardationDeath PenaltyPost-Conviction ReliefAdaptive BehaviorIQ TestingSchizophreniaForensic PsychologyEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentDevelopmental Period
References
17
Case No. 2017-08-0751; State File No. 15611-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2019

Holdway, Terri v. Lakeside Behavioral Health Systems

This case concerns Terri Holdway, a nurse seeking workers' compensation benefits for a mental injury allegedly stemming from a patient assault in February 2016 at Lakeside Behavioral Health Systems. Ms. Holdway claimed PTSD, depression, and anxiety, but medical records indicated pre-existing mental health issues. The court heard conflicting expert testimonies from Dr. Melvin Goldin, who diagnosed PTSD, and Dr. Joel A. Reisman, who refuted the PTSD diagnosis, citing Ms. Holdway's return to work and lack of avoidance behavior. The court sided with Dr. Reisman, finding that Ms. Holdway did not prove her mental injury arose primarily from her employment. Consequently, the claim for mental injury benefits was denied, though ongoing medical benefits for her facial injury were awarded.

Mental Injury ClaimPTSD DenialWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNurse InjuryPatient AssaultPre-existing ConditionsExpert Medical TestimonyDSM 5 CriteriaCausation DisputeEmployment Stress
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01355
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2020

Naula v. Utokilen, LLC

The plaintiff, Victor Naula, commenced an action for personal injuries against Utokilen, LLC, and others. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) found Naula's employer, Specialized Dental Construction, Inc., uninsured and Adapt Construction, LLC, to be the general contractor, awarding Naula workers' compensation benefits. Utokilen and Nancy Marin-Rojas D.D.S., P.C., initiated a third-party action against Specialized Dental for common-law indemnification and contribution. Specialized Dental moved for summary judgment, asserting exclusivity under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, but Utokilen and Marin-Rojas cross-moved, arguing Specialized Dental could not invoke § 11 due to its uninsured status. The Supreme Court granted the cross-motion and denied Specialized Dental's motion. The Appellate Division dismissed Adapt Construction, LLC's appeal as it was not an aggrieved party and affirmed the Supreme Court's order against Specialized Dental Construction, Inc.

Personal InjuriesWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentThird-Party ClaimsIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryUninsured EmployerAppellate PracticeCollateral Estoppel
References
7
Case No. WR-55-161-02
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2014

Cathey, Eric Dewayne

The applicant, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, filed a subsequent writ claiming mental retardation to be exempt from the death penalty. The case was remanded to the trial court, which conducted a five-day hearing and, on the last day of the judge's term, signed the applicant's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, deeming him mentally retarded. This court, however, rejected the trial judge's findings, specifically disagreeing with the application of the "Flynn Effect" to lower the applicant's IQ score and the reliability of retrospective adaptive behavior assessments. The court concluded that the applicant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered from significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning or significant adaptive deficits that originated during the developmental period. Consequently, the court denied relief on his application for a writ of habeas corpus, rejecting his Atkins claim.

Capital MurderDeath PenaltyMental RetardationIntellectual DisabilityAtkins ClaimHabeas CorpusWrit ApplicationFlynn EffectIQ ScoresAdaptive Behavior
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2014

Gallen v. County of Rockland

This case concerns an appeal by defendants Jay L. Lombard and Brain Behavior Center-Rockland from the denial of their motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice and wrongful death action. The plaintiff's decedent, after a suicide attempt, was discharged from Valley Hospital with a safety contract. The same day, he was seen by defendant Lombard, a neurologist, who performed a suicide assessment, prescribed medication, and concluded there was no immediate risk, but the decedent committed suicide a week later. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Lombard departed from good medical practice by failing to obtain prior records and conducting an inadequate suicide assessment.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathSuicide AssessmentNeurologist LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStandard of CareProximate CausePatient DischargePsychiatric Treatment
References
6
Case No. ADJ685961 (VEN 0120428) ADJ3005615 (PAS 0035964)
Regular
Aug 06, 2018

STEPHANIE CURRY vs. PACIFIC CARE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE, INC., THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ROSEMARY COTTAGE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Applicant Stephanie Curry suffered industrial injuries from employment with Pacific Care Behavioral Health Care, Inc. and Rosemary Cottage, leading to disputes regarding the scope of injury and compensation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of prior awards against CIGA and Travelers Insurance Company. Ultimately, the parties entered into a Compromise and Release agreement, which the WCAB approved, resolving all claims for a settlement payment of $1,363,071.00 from Travelers to applicant, thereby rescinding the prior findings and awards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStephanie CurryPacific Care Behavioral Health CareInc.Fremont Indemnity CompanyliquidationSedgwick Claims Management Servicesconsequential injurynew and further disabilitytemporary partial disability
References
0
Case No. M2005-00906-CCA-R9-DD
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2006

State of Tennessee v. Danny Strode

The defendant, Danny Strode, was indicted for murder and aggravated robbery, with the State seeking the death penalty. Strode moved to strike the death penalty, claiming mental retardation under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203(a). The trial court found him mentally retarded and ineligible for the death penalty, leading the State to pursue an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court reversed, ruling that mental retardation must manifest before age eighteen and found no evidence of an IQ below 70 or sufficient adaptive behavior deficits before that age. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Mental RetardationDeath PenaltyCapital PunishmentIQ TestAdaptive BehaviorStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawCriminal ProcedureAppealsExpert Witness
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Adam NN.

The case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County that terminated the parental rights of Jennifer NN. (mother) and Frederick NN. (father) to their child, Adam NN., pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, on the grounds of mental retardation. Adam was removed from his parents' care shortly after birth. Despite respondents' consistent attendance at supervised visitations, their parenting skills showed limited improvement. Psychological evaluations indicated both parents had subaverage intellectual functioning; the father's IQ was 50 (moderately mentally retarded), and the mother's was 63 (mildly mentally retarded). Experts testified that due to their cognitive deficiencies and impaired adaptive behavior, neither parent could provide proper and adequate care for Adam, who also has special needs, without significant risk of neglect. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of parental rights.

Parental rights terminationmental retardationchild neglectSocial Services LawIQ assessmentchild welfarespecial needs childFamily Court appealparental fitness
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scheidt v. Oberg

This case is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the defendants in a dog bite incident. The plaintiff sued after being bitten by the defendants' dog, Ziggy. To recover, the plaintiff needed to prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owners knew or should have known of them. The defendants presented evidence of no prior aggressive behavior or complaints. While the plaintiff described Ziggy barking, growling, and eventually biting him, he failed to provide evidence of the dog's known prior aggressive behavior or the owners' knowledge. A witness also testified to aggressive behavior but admitted not reporting it to the owners. The Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants was affirmed due to the plaintiff's failure to meet the burden of proof regarding the dog's vicious propensities and the owners' knowledge.

Dog biteAnimal attackVicious propensitiesOwner knowledgeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewBurden of proofPrior aggressive behaviorSaratoga CountyCourt of Appeals
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 356 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