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

Majors v. Moneymaker

Elsie N. Majors and her husband, Parnick Y. Majors, sued Elizabeth Moneymaker for damages following an automobile accident. All parties were co-employees of the American National Insurance Company, and the incident occurred within the scope of their employment, bringing them under the Tennessee Workmen's Compensation Law. Moneymaker filed a plea in abatement, arguing that the Workmen's Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy and she was not a 'third party' subject to a common law negligence suit. The trial court sustained the plea and dismissed the suits, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a co-employee is not considered 'some person other than the employer' under Code Section 6865, thereby making the workers' compensation remedy exclusive and precluding a common law action against the co-employee. The court also discussed the implications for the insurance carrier's subrogation rights.

Automobile AccidentWorkmen's CompensationExclusive RemedyFellow Employee LiabilityThird-Party SuitPlea in AbatementSubrogationCommon Law ActionTennessee Supreme CourtCo-employee Immunity
References
6
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

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. 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

Bryant v. Genco Stamping & Mfg. Co., Inc.

Bernard Bruce Bryant, a 46-year-old machinist, suffered from pre-existing panic disorder, agoraphobia, and major depressive disorder, as well as blindness in his right eye. In 1996, while employed by Genco, he sustained a work-related shoulder injury. Treatment for this injury, specifically anesthesia during surgery, severely aggravated his pre-existing mental conditions, rendering him permanently and totally disabled. The trial court initially found Genco and the Second Injury Fund liable, apportioning benefits. However, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed the Second Injury Fund's liability, holding that Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-208(a), which concerns "permanent physical disability," does not apply to pre-existing mental disorders. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Panel's decision, ruling that section 50-6-208(a) applies only to physical disabilities, thereby holding Genco fully liable for Mr. Bryant's permanent total disability benefits, which included both his physical and aggravated mental disabilities.

Workers' Compensation LawPre-existing Mental DisabilityPermanent Physical DisabilitySecond Injury Fund LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAggravation of InjuryShoulder InjuryMental Health ConditionsEmployer ResponsibilityVocational Impairment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2011

Karic v. Major Automotive Companies, Inc.

Plaintiffs, sales representatives, commenced an action against Major World car dealerships and individual defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) due to alleged failures to pay proper minimum wages. They moved for conditional certification of a collective action, approval of a proposed FLSA Notice, and expedited discovery. Defendants opposed, arguing discovery was substantially advanced and thus a heightened standard for certification should apply, and that certain entities should be excluded due to a lack of named representatives. The Court granted the plaintiffs' request for conditional certification, finding they met the minimal burden of showing similarly situated employees and a common compensation policy across all Major World entities. The Court also provided specific instructions for modifying the proposed class notice and ordered defendants to provide contact information for potential opt-in plaintiffs.

FLSANYLLCollective ActionConditional CertificationMinimum WageWage and HourSales RepresentativesCar DealershipsOpt-inSimilarly Situated
References
27
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,516 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