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 Pinto v. Southport Correctional Facility

Claimant, a teacher at a maximum-security correctional facility, experienced severe head pains and disorientation, leading to a claim for workers' compensation benefits for work-related stress, depression, headaches, and memory loss. The Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding the presumption of work-related injury rebutted and concluding that the stress experienced was not greater than that usually encountered in his work environment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision to deny the claim on the merits. While the court disagreed with the Board's finding that the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) due to personnel decisions, it upheld the Board's alternate basis for denial, stating that the claimant failed to show the stress was beyond what similarly situated workers experienced.

Workers' CompensationStress-related injuryMental injuryCausationPresumption of injuryRebuttal of presumptionPersonnel decisionWork environmentCorrectional facilityTeacher
References
14
Case No. 88, 89, 90, 91
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin; In the Matter of the Claim of Sheldon Matthews; In the Matter of the Claim of Melissa Anderson; In the Matter of the Claim of Bolot Djanuzakov

Four claimants (three transit workers and one teacher) sought Workers' Compensation Law benefits in 2020, alleging psychological injuries like PTSD from workplace COVID-19 exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claims, stating the stress experienced was not "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced," thus not constituting a compensable "accident." The Appellate Division reversed, arguing the Board erred by not considering claimants' vulnerabilities and applying disparate burdens compared to physical COVID-19 claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board's decisions, clarifying that individual vulnerabilities are immaterial and affirming the "greater stress" standard for compensability.

Workers' Compensation LawPsychological Injury ClaimsCOVID-19 Workplace ExposurePost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCompensable Accident StandardEmotional Stress CriteriaSimilarly Situated WorkersAppellate Division ReversalCourt of Appeals DecisionLegislative Amendments
References
26
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. 535539
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Zemira Sakanovic

Zemira Sakanovic appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for a causally-related psychological injury stemming from work-related stress. Sakanovic experienced anxiety, stress, and elevated blood pressure after a text-based Skype conversation with her supervisor, leading to an emergency room visit and diagnoses of hypertension and migraine. The Board, affirming a WCLJ, ruled that her work-related stress was not greater than that experienced by similarly situated workers and that no physical injury resulted from the alleged increase in stress. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to the factual finding that the pressures encountered by Sakanovic were not exceptional. Consequently, the court upheld the denial of her claim for workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryWorkplace StressCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewHypertensionAnxietyMental HealthGood-Faith Personnel DecisionSimilarly Situated Workers
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bressor v. Marriott Corp.

Claimant, a revenue reporting clerk, developed seizures linked to work-related stress, initially in January 1990 and again in January 1995 after increased duties. He filed a workers' compensation claim in May 1995. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the claim untimely, ruling the accident occurred in January 1990. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the January 1995 recurrence due to new stress constituted a separate, timely accident. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings to determine if the seizure disorder actually constituted an accident and its causal relationship to the job stress.

seizure disorderepilepsywork-related stresstimeliness of claimstatute of limitationsoccupational accidentBoard decisionappellate reviewremittalcausal relationship
References
2
Case No. CV-23-0279
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Monique Lewis

The case involves Monique Lewis, a social worker, who sustained a chest injury and alleged psychological injuries after being attacked by a dog during a home visit. The Workers' Compensation Board initially disallowed her claim for psychological injuries, applying a standard that required stress greater than that experienced by similarly situated workers. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed this decision. It ruled that since a workplace accident with physical impact was established for the chest injury, the Board erred in applying the "greater stress" standard for direct psychological injuries resulting from the same incident. The matter was remitted to the Board to determine the causal connection between the accident and the claimed psychological conditions, including PTSD, anxiety, and acute stress disorder.

Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryPTSDAnxietyAcute Stress DisorderPhysical ImpactWorkplace AccidentCausationAppellate ReviewSocial Worker
References
9
Case No. 533094
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Juan Bidot

Juan A. Bidot, a probation officer, filed an occupational disease claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging he developed posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression due to prolonged exposure to sex offenders. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, disallowing the claim because Bidot failed to demonstrate that his psychological stress was greater than that experienced by similarly situated officers. Bidot appealed the Board's denial of his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as Bidot failed to present newly discovered evidence or a material change in condition.

Occupational DiseasePosttraumatic Stress DisorderPTSDMental HealthWorkers' Compensation ClaimAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionReconsideration ApplicationBoard ReviewProbation Officer
References
9
Case No. 535739
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Maria DiMeo

Claimant, an outpatient physical therapist aide, suffered a myocardial infarction after a stressful interaction with her supervisor. She filed a workers' compensation claim, asserting a work-related stress injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding no physical injury. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence and contradicted medical evidence that a myocardial infarction constitutes a physical injury. The court remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Myocardial InfarctionWork-Related StressCausationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePhysical InjuryMedical EvidenceReversalRemittal
References
7
Case No. CV-22-2032
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of John Deliso

This case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a claim filed by John Deliso, a maintenance supervisor, for work-related repetitive stress injuries. The claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and repetitive stress injuries to wrists and shoulders was established. However, the employer alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, providing surveillance videos that contradicted Deliso's reported functional abilities during permanency evaluations by his treating physician, Christopher Kyriakides. An independent medical examination by Sean Lager also found no functional impairment and symptom magnification. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge, affirmed by the Board, found that Deliso made material misrepresentations regarding his functional abilities, thus violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of material misrepresentations and upholding the discretionary disqualification from future wage replacement benefits due to the egregious nature of the deception.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentationSurveillance EvidenceMedical EvaluationSchedule Loss of UseDisqualificationOccupational DiseaseAppellate ReviewMaterial Fact
References
12
Case No. 535434
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin

Claimant Kimberly McLaurin, a train operator for the New York City Transit Authority, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging she contracted COVID-19 and suffered consequential psychological injury due to workplace exposure. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding insufficient medical evidence of COVID-19 contraction and that the stress experienced was not greater than similarly situated workers. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the disallowance of the COVID-19 contraction and consequential injury claims due to lack of medical proof. However, it reversed the decision regarding the alternative claim for direct psychological injury, finding the Board improperly applied a disparate burden. The matter was remitted to the Board for reconsideration of the psychological injury claim consistent with the guidance in *Matter of Anderson v City of Yonkers* to determine if an elevated risk of exposure constituting an extraordinary event existed and if a causal connection to the alleged injury was present.

COVID-19Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryCausationWorkplace ExposureMedical EvidenceStress-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionRemittal
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 18,147 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