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. ADJ7329234; ADJ7432894; ADJ7434559; ADJ7433683
Regular
Dec 02, 2014

KATHY WASSON vs. COUNTY OF PLUMAS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior denial of industrial injury for psyche and heart claims. While applicant sustained a compensable psychiatric injury due to workplace events, compensation is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(h) as it was substantially caused by good faith personnel actions. However, applicant's heart injury, presumed compensable under Labor Code section 3212, remains compensable as the presumption was not rebutted and section 3208.3(h) does not apply. Further proceedings will address the sleep disorder claim and other deferred issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffPsychiatric injuryHypertensionSleep dysfunctionGood faith personnel actionLabor Code section 3208.3(h)PresumptionLabor Code section 3212Heart trouble
References
24
Case No. ADJ9978575
Regular
Sep 02, 2016

TANYA VAYSER vs. TARZANA TREATMENT CENTERS, ADMINSURE

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for psychiatric injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of a finding that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The defendant argued the injury was not supported by substantial medical evidence and was barred by Labor Code § 3208.3(h) as it was caused by lawful, good faith personnel actions. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found that the applicant's significant changes in work duties without adequate training constituted general working conditions, not specific personnel actions under § 3208.3(h). The Board affirmed the finding of injury AOE/COE, as the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof regarding the affirmative defense.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardTanya VayserTarzana Treatment CentersAdmisureADJ9978575Opinion and Order Denying Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderTemporary Total DisabilityInjury Arising Out of and Within the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Psychiatric Injury
References
10
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08022
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2014

Matter of Sean P.H. (Rosemarie H.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order of the Family Court, Richmond County, which found that the mother, Rosemarie H., permanently neglected her child, Sean P.H., terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody to Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services. The mother's contentions regarding deprivation of her right to be present and ineffective assistance of counsel were rejected, as her due process rights were met and she received meaningful representation. The court found clear and convincing evidence of permanent neglect due to her failure to plan for the child's return and comply with the service plan, and determined that termination was in the child's best interests.

Parental RightsChild NeglectFamily LawAppealsDue Process RightsLegal RepresentationFoster Care SystemGuardianshipAdoptionService Plan
References
23
Case No. ADJ4205101
Regular
Jul 23, 2013

SUSAN HECHT vs. WARNER BROTHERS, INC.

This case involved an applicant claiming an industrial injury to her psyche, digestive system, and head, stemming from a change in overtime policy. The defendant argued the psychological injury was non-compensable under Labor Code sections 3208.3(b)(2) and 3208.3(h), as it arose from a good faith personnel action. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's award, adopting the WCJ's report which found the injury compensable despite the personnel action. The Board also ordered the matter returned to the WCJ to determine the reasonable value of medical treatment provided by lien claimants.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPsycheDigestive SystemHeadSleep DisorderTemporary DisabilityEmployment Development DepartmentLien Claimants
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Mark C.H.

This case addresses whether New York's SCPA article 17-A, governing guardianship for persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities, meets constitutional standards without requiring periodic reporting and review. The facts involve Mark C.H., an adult with profound autism and mental retardation, for whom a $3 million trust existed but whose guardians (petitioner, his late mother's attorney, and a corporate bank) initially failed to use funds for his benefit, leading to suboptimal care. The court, applying the Mathews v Eldridge test and considering international human rights norms, found that the significant infringement on a ward's liberty interests necessitates periodic oversight. Consequently, the court held that article 17-A must be read to include a requirement for yearly reporting and judicial review for guardians of the person. The guardianship for Mark C.H. was granted to the petitioner with this new yearly reporting obligation.

GuardianshipDue ProcessMental RetardationDevelopmental DisabilitiesSCPA Article 17-APeriodic ReviewWard's RightsTrust Funds MismanagementMedical Care AccessConstitutional Law
References
23
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08836
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2015

Matter of Morgan A.H.-P. (Ta-Mirra J.H.)

This case concerns an appeal by Morgan A.H.-P., a child, from an order of the Family Court, Kings County. The Family Court order dismissed a petition filed by New Alternatives for Children (the Agency) to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect. The child was initially placed in foster care in 2010. After the child's transfer to the Agency in 2011, the permanency goal was changed from reunification to adoption, a decision contested by the mother. The Agency subsequently petitioned to terminate parental rights, relying on documentary evidence during the fact-finding hearing. The Family Court found that the Agency failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship, instead concluding that the Agency actively undermined it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision, determining that the Agency did not meet its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, thus upholding the dismissal of the termination petition.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectFamily CourtAppellate ReviewChild WelfareDiligent EffortsParent-Child RelationshipTermination of Parental RightsSocial Services LawFoster Care
References
6
Case No. ADJ9571986
Regular
Feb 22, 2019

ANNE CHOU vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the apportionment of psychiatric permanent disability. The Board clarified that Labor Code section 3208.3(h) pertains to the causation of the injury itself, not the apportionment of permanent disability. Therefore, lawful nondiscriminatory personnel actions, which did not meet the 35% causation threshold for non-compensability, cannot be used to apportion permanent disability under Labor Code section 4663. Accordingly, the applicant's permanent disability was increased from 19% to 22%.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryGastrointestinal SystemPsycheHypertensionTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re H. R.

The Law Guardian for the infant H. R. filed an application seeking an order to place H. R. in the certified foster home of Mr. and Mrs. S., where his three half-siblings already reside. H. R. was born drug-positive and with syphilis, requiring special care. The Rockland County Department of Social Services opposed the placement, citing New York State Department of Social Services regulations regarding household capacity and the special needs of the children, arguing it would jeopardize the care of the other eight children in the S. home. The court, citing New York Family Court Act § 1027-a, emphasized the strong state policy of keeping siblings together and the presumption that such placement is in the child's best interests. The court found the Department's opposition to be based on speculation rather than concrete evidence of harm, and therefore insufficient to overcome the legal presumption. Consequently, the court granted the application, directing the Commissioner of Social Services to place infant H. R. with the S. foster family, with an expectation of continued monitoring by the Commissioner.

Child welfaresibling placementfoster carebest interests of the childFamily Court ActDepartment of Social Servicesdrug addictionhandicapped childrenjudicial discretionNew York law
References
3
Case No. ADJ10908110
Regular
Mar 06, 2019

SHAKE KHACHATRIAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant's claim for psychiatric injury. The defendant did not deny liability within 90 days, creating a presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402(b). However, the Board held that this presumption does not preclude the defendant from presenting evidence to support a lawful, good faith personnel action defense under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). This defense is considered exempt from the 90-day investigatory limitation, allowing the defendant to present all competent evidence regardless of when it was obtained. The case is therefore returned to the trial level for a new decision on the merits of the personnel action defense.

Labor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilityLabor Code section 3208.3(h)good faith personnel actionreasonable diligencecumulative industrial injurypsychiatric injuryDWC-1 claim formsubstantial causejudicial interpretation
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,925 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