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. 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. 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. 02-18-00019-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2019

in Re: The Commitment of Gregory A. Jones

Gregory A. Jones appealed the trial court's order committing him as a sexually violent predator. Psychologists Jason Dunham and Sheri Gaines evaluated Jones, testifying to his behavioral abnormality and likelihood to commit sexually violent offenses based on his criminal history, risk factors, and test results. The jury found Jones to be a sexually violent predator. The Court of Appeals found the evidence legally sufficient but reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. The reversal was due to the trial court's error in denying Jones's request for a jury instruction allowing a non-unanimous (10-2) verdict for a 'no' finding, which is permissible under civil procedure rules for non-affirmative determinations.

Sexually Violent PredatorCivil CommitmentJury InstructionLegal SufficiencyBehavioral AbnormalityRisk AssessmentRecidivismExpert TestimonyForensic PsychologyCriminal History
References
30
Case No. 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1028
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2004

In Re Commitment of Fisher

This case involves the civil commitment of Michael James Fisher as a sexually violent predator under the Texas Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act. The Supreme Court of Texas addresses whether the Act is punitive or civil, concluding that it is civil based on legislative intent and its non-punitive effects, despite provisions for criminal penalties for violations of commitment conditions. The opinion also rejects Fisher's arguments regarding the right to be competent at trial in a civil commitment proceeding, Fifth Amendment self-incrimination, and facial vagueness challenges to the Act's "behavioral abnormality" definition and individualized treatment. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, which had found the Act punitive and unconstitutional, and affirmed Fisher's civil commitment.

Sexually Violent Predator ActCivil CommitmentDue ProcessConstitutional LawPunitive vs. CivilBehavioral AbnormalityMental CompetencyFifth AmendmentVagueness ChallengeOutpatient Treatment
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2017

In re Harris

The State filed a civil petition to commit Bobby Lee Harris for involuntary treatment and supervision as a sexually violent predator under the Texas Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act. The jury found Harris to be a sexually violent predator, leading to a civil commitment order. Harris appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence that his future acts would be predatory, and the trial court's partial directed verdict on his repeat sexually violent offender status. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of a behavioral abnormality predisposing him to sexually violent offenses, and that a partial directed verdict on the repeat sexually violent offender element was permissible when no fact issue exists.

Sexually Violent Predator ActCivil CommitmentBehavioral AbnormalityPredatory ActRepeat Sexually Violent OffenderLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceDirected VerdictPedophiliaAntisocial Personality Disorder
References
29
Case No. 19 Misc 3d 689
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2008

State v. P.H.

This opinion addresses a sex offender civil management petition filed against Respondent EH. under Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, following a hearing on September 22, 2008. Dr. Erika Frances, a psychiatric examiner, testified that EH. suffers from mental abnormalities including exhibitionism and voyeurism, which predispose him to sex offenses, and that he has serious difficulty controlling such conduct. The court, presided over by Justice Daniel P. Conviser, found probable cause to believe that EH. is a sex offender requiring civil management. Citing EH.'s extensive history of uncontrolled exhibitionist and voyeuristic behaviors and a past escalation to a hands-on sexual offense, the court determined he poses a sufficient danger to the community. Consequently, the court ordered EH.'s confinement in a secure treatment facility pending trial, deeming lesser conditions of supervision inadequate to ensure public safety.

Sex Offender Civil ManagementMental Hygiene Law Article 10Probable Cause HearingExhibitionismVoyeurismMental AbnormalityRecidivism RiskForensic PsychologySexual AbuseAttempted Rape
References
27
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. James Z.

In June 2010, the petitioner commenced a proceeding under the Mental Hygiene Law to civilly manage the respondent, alleging he was a sex offender requiring confinement due to a mental abnormality. After a jury trial, the respondent was found to be a detained sex offender with a mental abnormality, and subsequently committed to a secure treatment facility with his consent. The respondent appealed, contending that the jury's finding was against the weight of the evidence and that Supreme Court erred by allowing testimony about misconduct from his presentence report and using a confusing verdict sheet. The appellate court affirmed the order, determining that the jury's verdict was supported by expert testimony from multiple psychologists and that there were no errors in the court's evidentiary or procedural decisions. The court deferred to the jury's credibility determinations regarding the competing expert opinions on respondent's mental abnormality.

Sex OffenderCivil CommitmentMental AbnormalityAntisocial Personality DisorderParaphiliaExpert TestimonyWeight of EvidencePresentence ReportVerdict SheetAppellate Review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 375 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