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. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Velez v. Modern Linens & Towels

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1998, later including major depression, and was deemed to have a permanent partial disability. A 2003 settlement agreement for a $50,000 lump sum under Workers' Compensation Law § 32, with counsel fees, was approved by the Workers’ Compensation Board in February 2004. Claimant subsequently sought to reopen the case, requesting a late payment penalty and challenging the agreement for excluding his depressive disorder. The Board denied both requests, determining no late penalty was due as the agreement was not properly "submitted" per former regulations, and the agreement precluded further compensation for the psychological injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that without a hearing, the agreement was not 'submitted' to trigger late penalties, and upholding the Board's discretionary approval. The court also rejected the contention to nullify the agreement regarding depression, citing a prior finding that the causal relationship between employment and depression had terminated and benefits were focused on the back injury.

Workers' Compensation Law § 32Settlement AgreementLate Payment PenaltyPermanent Partial DisabilityMajor DepressionBoard ApprovalDiscretionary AuthorityWorkers' Compensation BoardLump Sum SettlementCounsel Fees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scodary v. Serritella

Claimant established a work-related neck and left arm injury, receiving workers’ compensation benefits for a brief period in December 2003. Her employment was terminated in January 2004, leading to new issues regarding further causally related disability, consequential depression, and withdrawal from the labor market. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim for consequential depression, asserting that her psychologist's treatment lacked the required referral from an authorized physician under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-m (2) (a). The appellate court ruled this exclusion of evidence was an error, stating the statute does not create an evidentiary barrier to a psychologist's testimony and records, even without a physician referral. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the exclusion of evidence for consequential depression, and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsConsequential DepressionPsychologist TestimonyReferral RequirementEvidentiary StandardsCausally Related DisabilityLoss of EarningsAppellate ReviewRemittalMedical Evidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05929
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2018

Matter of Pelsinger

The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District moved to confirm a Special Referee's report which sustained 13 charges of professional misconduct against attorney Kenneth S. Pelsinger. The charges included dishonesty, fraud, misappropriation of client funds, and failure to cooperate with investigations. Pelsinger sought mitigation due to untreated major depressive disorder and attention deficit disorder, proposing public censure or a monitoring program. The Appellate Division, Second Department, found that Pelsinger failed to establish a causal link between his disorders and the misconduct, noting his extensive disciplinary history, including a prior three-year suspension for similar offenses. The court determined that Pelsinger's conduct was intentional and deceptive, and ordered his immediate disbarment.

Attorney MisconductDisbarmentProfessional ResponsibilityMisappropriation of FundsFraudFailure to CooperateDisciplinary HistoryMitigating FactorsGrievance CommitteeDefault Judgment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ashley L.

The respondent, mother of Ashley L., appealed a Family Court order from Clinton County, entered December 30, 2004, which terminated her parental rights based on mental illness under Social Services Law § 384-b. The petitioner, a social services agency, initiated the proceeding after Ashley was taken into protective custody at birth due to the mother's extensive mental illness history. Licensed psychologist Richard Liotta and psychiatrist Bruce Kokernot testified about the respondent's mental health conditions, including major depressive disorder, mood disorder, and personality disorder, opining she was unable to provide adequate care and likely to relapse. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding sufficient proof of mental illness and rejecting claims of an unfair hearing and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Parental rights terminationMental illnessChild welfareSocial Services Law § 384-bPsychological evaluationPsychiatric diagnosisRelapse riskIneffective assistance of counselAppellate reviewFamily Court decision
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of D'Errico v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant, a maintenance worker for the New York City Department of Corrections, sought workers' compensation benefits for severe major depressive disorder with psychotic features, post-traumatic stress disorder, and panic disorder, which he attributed to exposure to violent incidents at work. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, concluding he was not exposed to greater work-related stress than similarly situated employees. Claimant appealed both the initial denial (April 20, 2007) and the subsequent denial of reconsideration/full Board review (January 23, 2008), but failed to timely perfect the appeal from the initial decision. Consequently, the court's review was limited to whether the Board abused its discretion in denying reconsideration. Finding no abuse of discretion, as the claimant presented no new evidence or material change in conditions, and the Board had fully considered the issues, the court affirmed the Board's decision.

Mental Health ClaimsDepressive DisorderPTSDPanic DisorderWorkplace StressAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationFull Board ReviewDiscretionary ReviewTimeliness of Appeal
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schmeling v. New Venture Gear

The claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits in 2001, alleging stress-induced injuries caused by psychological harassment at her workplace. She was diagnosed with several psychological disorders, including schizo-affective disorder and depression. Although ongoing medical treatment was required, both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that no causal relationship existed between her disability and her employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in evaluating medical witness credibility regarding causation. The decision was supported by substantial evidence, as the Board weighed conflicting medical opinions from various physicians.

Psychological harassmentStress-induced injuryCausationMedical credibilityWorkers' Compensation BoardSubstantial evidencePsychiatric disabilityAppellate reviewDiscretion of BoardMental health claim
References
4
Case No. 525286
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2018

Matter of Karam v. Rensselaer County Sheriff's Dept.

James J. Karam, a former Lieutenant with the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department, appealed decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his claim for benefits, ruling he did not suffer a causally-related mental injury. Karam alleged work-related posttraumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder stemming from a stressful and discriminatory work environment. The Board affirmed the disallowance, concluding Karam did not experience stress beyond that of a normal work environment and finding his testimony incredible. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, upholding its factual findings and credibility assessments, and finding no error in the denial of reconsideration.

Mental InjuryPosttraumatic Stress DisorderMajor Depressive DisorderWorkplace StressCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAdministrative LawEmployment DiscriminationHarassment Claims
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

London v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Scott London sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The District Court granted the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Plaintiff's motion. The Court found the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) determination, which identified severe depressive and anxiety disorders but concluded Plaintiff could perform unskilled work, was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the Court affirmed the ALJ's weighing of the treating physician's opinion, the assessment of Plaintiff's residual functional capacity, and the finding that a nonverbal learning disorder was not a severe impairment.

Social Security Disability AppealDisability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeALJ Decision ReviewResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleSevere ImpairmentsMental Health DisabilityDepressive DisorderAnxiety Disorder
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 552 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