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. 11-05-00417-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2008

State Office of Risk Management v. Belinda Baker

This workers' compensation case involves the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealing an award to Belinda Baker for depression, which she claimed resulted from a work fall. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission found her injury extended to include depression. SORM sought judicial review. The trial court granted Baker's motion for a directed verdict, concluding SORM failed to present evidence that Baker's injury did not cause her depression recurrence. The appellate court found that SORM did create fact issues regarding the extension of the injury to include depression. The court identified ample evidence of other potential stressors contributing to Baker's depression recurrence, such as marital issues, family illness, and a long history of recurrent major depressive disorder predating the work injury. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers CompensationDepressionMental HealthPreexisting ConditionDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewCausationMedical EvidenceTexas LawRelapse
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2001

Claim of Multari v. Keenan Oil Co.

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from July 25, 2001, which found that a section 32 waiver agreement included his major depression condition. The claimant had settled two compensation cases from 1972 and 1994 for $93,000, closing both. He later argued the agreement failed to cover his major depression, established in 1996 in conjunction with the 1994 accident. The Board affirmed its jurisdiction and rejected the claimant's contention that the major depression was excluded. The appellate court agreed the Board had jurisdiction to determine if a condition was included in a section 32 agreement. On the merits, the court found the Board correctly concluded the major depression condition was subsumed in the settlement, citing the agreement's unequivocal terms and the claimant's hearing testimony. The agreement stated cases could not be reopened "for any purpose whatsoever" and permanently discontinued weekly benefits that included compensation for depression.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementMajor DepressionPsychiatric ConditionJurisdictionSection 32 AgreementAppealBoard ReviewScope of Agreement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henley v. Roadway Express

The case involves an employee who developed depressive neurosis attributed to working a third shift and resultant sleep difficulties. The trial court awarded 75% permanent partial disability benefits for a mental impairment caused by third shift work, considering it an injury arising out of employment. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision. The Court determined that the employee's mental disorder did not constitute an 'injury by accident' within the statutory limits, as general worry or emotional stress are insufficient for a compensation award. Furthermore, the court found that the inability to sleep at home was not a hazard incident to employment and lacked a causal connection to work conditions. Additionally, the court noted a fatal infirmity in the proof, as the clinical psychologist was not qualified to provide expert medical testimony on the permanency or extent of the disability.

Worker's Compensation LawDepressive NeurosisShift Work DisorderOccupational Mental HealthArising Out Of EmploymentIn The Course Of EmploymentPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical CausationPsychologist TestimonySupreme Court Appeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Shirley

This case concerns an appellee who suffered an electric shock from a broken, defectively insulated wire owned by the appellant, Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Company. The wire, which fell across a heavily charged line of the San Antonio Gas & Electric Company, caused severe injuries to the appellee, including neurosis, paralysis, and heart depression. A jury awarded the appellee $23,500 after finding the appellant negligent, while the San Antonio Gas & Electric Company received an instructed verdict. The appellant challenged the judgment on grounds of improper removal to federal court, insufficient evidence of negligence, and erroneous jury charges regarding damages. The appellate court affirmed the decision, upholding the state court's jurisdiction and the jury's findings, emphasizing the appellant's duty to maintain safe wires given the inherent dangers of electricity.

NegligenceElectric ShockDefective InsulationWire BreakPersonal InjuryDamagesAppealFederal JurisdictionRemoval of CauseJoint Tort-feasors
References
25
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

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2009

Claim of Smith v. Cornell University

Decedent, a painter, suffered work-related injuries in 2000 and 2001, leading to a workers’ compensation claim established for consequential depression. In 2007, he committed suicide. His wife, the claimant, sought death benefits, arguing the suicide stemmed from his work injuries, chronic pain, and depression. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the claim, finding substantial medical evidence from the treating psychiatrist and an independent medical examiner supported a causal link between the 2001 accident, subsequent depression, and suicide. The Board also concluded that a compensable accident only needs to be a contributing cause to a mental injury, thus affirming the causal relationship despite other potential factors.

SuicideDepressionWork-related injuryCausationDeath benefitsWorkers' Compensation LawChronic painMental healthMedical evidenceAppellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elida Shkreli v. Initial Contract Services

The claimant suffered an electrical shock at work in August 2002, resulting in neck and back injuries that led to permanent partial disability. She subsequently developed depression, claiming it was a consequential psychiatric disability related to her workplace accident. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits for this psychiatric condition, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, crediting the carrier's psychiatrist over the claimant's treating psychiatrist regarding causation. This court, however, reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the carrier's psychiatrist's opinion lacked a rational basis and was speculative, as it failed to adequately account for the claimant's significant physical injuries and the temporal proximity of her depression to the accident. The court found the treating psychiatrist's opinion, linking the depression to the accident, was effectively uncontroverted. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationPsychiatric InjuryDepressionCausationExpert Medical TestimonyIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionReversal
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Altes v. Petrocelli Electric Co.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying death benefits to a claimant whose decedent committed suicide after a work-related injury. The Board concluded there was no causal relationship and that severe depression was insufficient for a suicide claim. The appellate court found the Board applied an incorrect legal standard, stating that depressive reactions can qualify as 'brain derangement' and a work-related injury only needs to be a 'contributing cause' to the ensuing suicide. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with the correct legal standard.

Suicide ClaimDeath BenefitsCausationDepressionMental InjuryWork-Related InjuryLegal Standard ErrorAppellate CourtRemittal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 303 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