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

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. 25874/98
Regular Panel Decision

Jun Chi Guan v. Tuscan Dairy Farms

This dissenting opinion concerns a case where plaintiff Shao Zhen Kwan, a grandmother, sought damages for emotional injuries after witnessing her grandson's fatal accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that a grandparent does not qualify as "immediate family" for emotional distress claims under New York law and that the grandmother did not sufficiently witness the event. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The dissenting judge argues that established precedent does not preclude grandparents from "immediate family" status, citing their special legal recognition and caregiving roles. Furthermore, the judge contends that contemporaneous awareness, rather than literal witnessing, is sufficient for such claims. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Immediate Family DoctrineZone of Danger RuleEmotional Distress DamagesBystander RecoveryNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressGrandparent Visitation RightsNew York Tort LawSummary Judgment MotionDe Facto Parent StatusContemporaneous Awareness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pinkus v. Hod Carmel Kosher Provision Co.

The claimant appealed the disallowance of his claim, asserting that a work-induced argument with his foreman caused emotional stress, leading to arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease and depressive psychosis. The board found that the incident did not constitute an accidental injury under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, determining that the emotional strain was not greater than typical workplace irritations. Furthermore, the board found no causal relationship between the incident and the disabling conditions, relying on the opinions of the employer’s medical experts in heart diseases, neurology, and psychiatry. The decision of the board was affirmed.

emotional stresswork-induced argumentcoronary insufficiencydepressive psychosiscausationaccidental injuryWorkmen's Compensation Lawworkplace irritationmedical expert testimonyappellate review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ayala v. DRE Maintenance Corp.

The dissenting opinion concerns whether the Workers’ Compensation Board erred in finding a causal relationship between the decedent’s depression, resulting from a 1978 shooting accident, and his death in 1988. The dissent argues that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding. Dr. Hugo Morales, the decedent’s treating psychiatrist, clearly testified that while drug-alcohol abuse was the immediate cause of death, the decedent's severe and unabated 10-year depression was also a contributing factor. Dr. Morales’ medical opinion, meeting the "significant probability” and "rational basis” tests, indicated a clear relationship between the emotional status and death. Therefore, the dissenting justices would affirm the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationDepressionCausationDeath BenefitsMedical TestimonyPsychiatric EvaluationCausal RelationshipDrug-Alcohol AbuseDissenting OpinionTreating Physician
References
1
Case No. 811336/22E
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2024

J.M. v. Rozanov

The plaintiff, J.M., sued Victor Rozanov for intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of New York City Administrative Code § 10-180 and Civil Rights Law § 50-b. The claims arose from the defendant's nonconsensual dissemination of intimate images and videos of the plaintiff online, which included her face and full name. This malicious conduct, which continued even after a criminal conviction and a prior civil judgment in New Jersey, caused J.M. severe emotional distress, manifesting as panic attacks, depression, and anxiety. Following an inquest where the plaintiff's testimony and a clinical social worker's report were presented, the court found the defendant liable. Consequently, the court awarded J.M. $500,000 for past and future pain and suffering and an additional $2,500,000 in punitive damages.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNonconsensual Dissemination of Intimate ImagesRevenge PornCivil Rights ViolationsDamages AwardPunitive DamagesDefault JudgmentEmotional DistressMental HealthOnline Harassment
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaliski v. Fairchild Republic Co.

Claimant, an employee of Fairchild Republic Company, experienced emotional distress and anxiety depression after two arguments with a co-worker, Martha White. The arguments involved disparaging racial remarks and taunts about claimant's infertility. Claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were initially disallowed by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding the claim compensable, stating that White's statements constituted "more than the usual irritations". The employer appealed, arguing the stress was not beyond normal work environment stress. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the determination of stress level is a factual issue for the Board and that ample evidence supported the Board's finding that the remarks were exceptional. The court also noted that claimant's pre-existing sensitivity or anxiety did not undermine the decision, as the encounters could precipitate a latent condition or aggravate a preexisting emotional instability.

Emotional DistressWorkplace HarassmentCo-worker DisputeAccidental Injury ClaimPsychic InjuryPre-existing Emotional InstabilityCausationSubstantial Evidence ReviewWorkers' Compensation AppealInfertility Taunts
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1988

Brophy v. County of Putnam

The plaintiff, a former Putnam County Deputy Sheriff, sought damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging the county opposed his efforts to obtain workers' compensation benefits and wrongfully terminated his employment. His motion for partial summary judgment, based on General Municipal Law § 207-c, was denied by the Supreme Court due to an unjustified five-year delay in asserting the statutory claim, which would prejudice the county. The Supreme Court's decision to deny the motion was affirmed on appeal, finding no merit in the plaintiff's argument against the "theory-of-pleadings doctrine" and emphasizing the lengthy and unexplained delay in asserting the claim after the law's amendment.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPartial Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDisability PensionEmployment TerminationProcedural DelayStatutory ClaimAppellate ReviewAffirmationGeneral Municipal Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 1992

Jones v. Utilities Painting Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the third-party defendant, Consolidated Edison Co., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The original order had granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to include a cause of action for future medical surveillance costs and emotional distress against Consolidated Edison Co. The appellate court reversed the order, denying the plaintiffs' motion. The court found that the cause of action was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, citing several prior cases as precedent.

Medical Surveillance CostsEmotional DistressWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Amendment of ComplaintAppealReversal of OrderMotion DeniedThird-Party DefendantSupreme CourtNew York Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 677 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