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

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
May 20, 1988

Claim of Boiano v. Delma Engineering Corp.

The employer appealed an amended decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found the claimant suffered a permanent total psychiatric disability linked to a 1979 industrial accident and resulting back injury. The employer contested the finding, arguing that the claimant’s psychiatrist’s opinion was irrational given the Board’s finding that the claimant was not physically disabled after March 10, 1980. However, the psychiatrist maintained that his opinion regarding the psychiatric disability was independent of the physical disability findings. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the psychiatrist's report and testimony provided substantial evidence to support the finding of a causally related total psychiatric disability.

Psychiatric DisabilityWorkers' CompensationIndustrial AccidentBack InjuryCausationMedical OpinionExpert TestimonyPermanent Total DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Weech

The case involves an appeal from a defendant's murder conviction where the case was remitted to Trial Term to reconstruct the defendant's competency to stand trial. Two psychiatrists, Dr. Wellington Reynolds and Dr. Odysseus Adamides, assessed the defendant's competency based on various reports and observations. Dr. Reynolds had examined the defendant prior to trial. The defendant challenged Dr. Reynolds' credentials, asserting he was not a "qualified psychiatrist" under CPL 730.10(5)(a). The court previously remitted the case for a reconstruction proceeding. This current decision remits the matter once more for an adversary inquiry into the defendant's competency, clarifying that Dr. Reynolds' testimony, even if not from a "qualified psychiatrist," is admissible, and other professionals like the social worker, nurse, defense counsel, and Trial Judge could also testify.

Competency to Stand TrialReconstruction ProceedingPsychiatric EvaluationCriminal Procedure LawAdmissibility of Expert TestimonyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessMental Health ServicesDefendant's RightsMurder Second Degree
References
7
Case No. ADJ6913767
Regular
Jul 05, 2012

YOLANDA BARCENAS vs. IN HOME SUPPORT SERVICES (IHSS), STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the applicant's psychiatric reports were inadmissible. The primary treating physician, an orthopedist, did not review or incorporate the reports from the applicant's treating psychiatrist, nor did he designate the psychiatrist to provide opinions. Consequently, the Board struck the finding of injury to the psyche and amended the permanent disability award to 28%, solely based on orthopedic findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityPrimary Treating PhysicianOrthopedistPsychiatristAdmissibility of ReportsLabor Code Section 4061.5Injury to Psyche
References
0
Case No. VNO 0411435
Regular
Dec 27, 2007

REBECA WISE vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE, permissibly self-insured, administered by OCTAGON RISK SERVICES

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision that denied an industrial psychiatric injury claim, arguing that the psychiatrist's opinion was not substantial evidence. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the psychiatrist's opinion to be substantial medical evidence that supported the finding of non-industrial causation for the psychiatric injury. The Board also noted that the issue of housekeeping services was not ripe for reconsideration and a clerical error regarding apportionment would be corrected at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRebeca WiseCalifornia State University NorthridgeOctagon Risk ServicesVNO 0411435Opinion and Order Denying Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryLumbar Spine
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 1992

Claim of Johns v. Croton Union Free School District

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The original decision found no causal relationship between the decedent's employment and his suicide, thereby denying workers' compensation benefits to the claimant. The appellate court, reviewing expert opinions from an impartial psychiatrist and an employer-presented board-certified psychiatrist, concluded that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the decision, upholding the denial of benefits.

Workers' CompensationSuicideCausal RelationshipExpert OpinionAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionDenial of BenefitsPsychiatric EvaluationSubstantial Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2001

Aherin v. County of Onondaga

In December 1995, the claimant's spouse, an employee of the Onondaga County Highway Department, suffered a back injury. In January 1998, he committed suicide. The claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits, alleging a causal link between the work injury and the suicide. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding no causal connection. The claimant appealed, relying on a psychiatrist's report. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the psychiatrist's opinion was based on speculation rather than sufficient medical evidence in the record.

SuicideCausationDeath BenefitsWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical OpinionPsychiatric EvaluationMental IllnessAppellate ReviewEvidentiary StandardSpeculative Evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Custody of Rebecca B.

In a child custody proceeding, the court unanimously affirmed orders from the Family Court, New York County. These orders denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, granted the Law Guardian's motion to quash subpoenas, and denied the respondent's motion to disqualify a court-appointed psychiatrist. The court found that Lawyers for Children, Inc., as the child's Law Guardian, had standing to seek a change of custody. It also ruled that communications between the child and the Law Guardian, as well as a hired social worker, were protected by attorney-client privilege or work product immunity, justifying the quashing of subpoenas. Furthermore, the motion to disqualify the psychiatrist was properly denied due to a lack of proof of bias.

Child CustodyLaw Guardian StandingSubpoena QuashalAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrinePsychiatrist DisqualificationFamily Court OrdersAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionLegal Representation of Child
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mancini v. Scotia Police Department

A police officer suffered work-related physical injuries in 1973. Years later, in 1979, he filed a claim for severe depression and nervous exhaustion, alleging these conditions were caused by his police duties or the initial 1973 accident. Both applications were denied by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found no causal relationship between his emotional disturbance and his employment. The Board's decision was based on conflicting medical testimonies, ultimately crediting doctors who found no job-related link over the claimant's psychiatrist and an impartial psychiatrist whose opinion was conditional on unproven allegations of harassment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's role as the finder of fact in resolving testimonial and medical conflicts.

Workers' CompensationEmotional DisturbanceDepressive NeurosisPolice OfficerCausationMedical Testimony ConflictBoard Decision ReviewHarassment AllegationsMental Health ClaimAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 529776
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Page v. Liberty Cent. Sch. Dist.

Angela Page, who received workers' compensation for occupational mold exposure and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), sought benefits for a consequential psychological injury. Following a 2012 Board decision that she had no further causally-related physical disability, a WCLJ and the Board later precluded her psychiatrist's (Dr. Newton) reports and testimony regarding her adjustment disorder, citing noncompliance with IME regulations. They also found no compensable lost time. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling the employer's objection to Dr. Newton's evidence was untimely. It further found the Board's conclusion of no disability was not supported by substantial evidence, given that both claimant's and the employer's psychiatrists agreed on the psychological diagnosis, differing only on the degree of disability. The case was remitted for further proceedings.

Occupational ExposureToxic MoldHypersensitivity ReactionMultiple Chemical SensitivityConsequential Psychological InjuryAdjustment DisorderPsychiatric DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationEvidence PreclusionTimeliness of Objection
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 124 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