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. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Francis v. Chemical Banking Corp.

Plaintiff Donahue Francis sued his former employer, Chase Manhattan Bank, alleging race and disability discrimination, and hostile work environment under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Francis claimed racial harassment and asserted he suffered from panic disorder with agoraphobia. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all federal claims, including those for race discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to promote, denial of salary increases, and retaliation. The court concluded that Francis failed to establish a prima facie case for most claims and did not demonstrate his panic disorder substantially limited a major life activity under the ADA. The remaining state law claims for disability discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress were dismissed without prejudice as the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Race DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)New York State Human Rights Law (HRL)Summary JudgmentPanic DisorderAgoraphobiaRetaliation Claim
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fonda v. Cambridge Filter Corp.

A claimant developed asbestosis from pre-1972 work-related asbestos exposure, diagnosed in 1991. Although the asbestosis did not cause pulmonary disability, the claimant developed a disabling panic or anxiety disorder due to the increased cancer risk. The Workers' Compensation Board denied benefits, ruling that pre-1974 asbestosis without total disability is non-compensable and a consequential anxiety disorder does not constitute an accident or occupational disease. The appellate court found that entitlement to compensation depends on whether the claimant was totally disabled by two inseparable causative agents, one of which was the asbestosis, especially since the Board had implied a causal link between asbestosis and the anxiety disorder. Because the Board failed to determine the extent of the claimant’s disability or the inseparability of the conditions, the decision was reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAsbestosisOccupational DiseaseAnxiety DisorderPanic DisorderCausationTotal DisabilityCompensabilityAppellate ReviewRemand
References
3
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

Clayton v. Colvin

Joseph M. Clayton initiated an action against the Social Security Administration's Acting Commissioner, seeking to reverse a denial of his disability benefits and supplemental security income. The core of his appeal revolved around his diagnosed anxiety disorder, panic attacks, and major depressive affective disorder, leading to a hearing officer's initial denial and a subsequent Appeals Council rejection. The District Court identified a critical flaw in the hearing officer's proceedings: the failure to properly apply the "treating physician rule" by not considering Dr. Zollo's submitted medical report, despite an explicit duty to develop the record for mental impairments. Although other arguments from Clayton were dismissed, the court concluded that while total reversal was unwarranted due to the equivocal nature of Dr. Zollo's report, the case required a remand for the hearing officer to re-evaluate the treating physician's opinion.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeSocial Security AdministrationTreating Physician RuleRecord Development DutyMental ImpairmentAnxiety DisorderPanic AttacksMajor Depressive Affective DisorderResidual Functional Capacity
References
15
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08907 [156 AD3d 1132]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

Claim of Kraus v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

Claimant, Gerard J. Kraus, a workers' compensation claims adjustor for Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., was terminated due to inconsistent application of a no-fault policy, which led to him receiving threats from unionized employee drivers. He subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits, alleging a psychiatric occupational disease, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, panic disorder, and insomnia, stemming from work-related stress and threats. The Workers' Compensation Board found that claimant sustained a causally-related accidental psychiatric injury and rejected the employer's contention that claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Board also denied the employer's application for reconsideration, full Board review, and a rehearing, deeming some filings untimely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board's determination of a compensable work-related psychiatric injury was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board properly exercised its discretion in its procedural rulings.

Psychiatric InjuryPTSDWorkplace StressCausationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEmployer PolicyEmployee TerminationAdministrative ProcedureAppellate DivisionSufficiency of Evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1996

Claim of Palevsky v. New York City Board of Education

In 1986, while working as an education associate in the Bronx, the claimant sustained a fractured nose due to a student altercation and filed a timely workers' compensation claim, receiving benefits. The case remained open for a pending nasal surgery issue. Years later, in 1992, the claimant sought compensation for alleged consequential posttraumatic stress disorder. The self-insured employer, the New York City Board of Education, argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 28, a two-year statute of limitations, barred this new claim. However, both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed that Section 28 does not apply to consequential injuries. Upon appeal, the Court concurred, holding that a subsequent claim for disability compensation related to injuries in an earlier, timely claim is not barred by the two-year limit for amendment.

Workers' CompensationPosttraumatic Stress DisorderStatute of LimitationsConsequential InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Time BarBoard DecisionAppealWorkplace InjuryNasal Fracture
References
3
Case No. 10 Civ. 3314; 10 Civ. 5013
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2010

Alzheimer's Foundation of America, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This consolidated opinion addresses dueling motions to dismiss in two civil actions involving the Alzheimer’s Foundation of Americas, Inc. (the "Foundation") and the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the "Association"). The Foundation initiated a lawsuit alleging misrepresentation, trademark dilution, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, conversion, and UCC violations against the Association and Northern Trust. Conversely, the Association filed its own complaint asserting claims of trademark infringement, libel, injurious falsehood, false designation, dilution, fraud, tortious interference, injury to business reputation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy against the Foundation and several individuals. The court denied motions to dismiss the Lanham Act, dilution, and unfair competition claims for both parties, but granted motions to dismiss the UCC, conversion, libel, unjust enrichment, and fraud claims, including all claims against Northern Trust. Leave to amend the complaints was granted.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionLanham ActDilutionUnjust EnrichmentConversionFraudCollateral EstoppelMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1999

Claim of Spencer v. Time Warner Cable

Claimant, a former customer service representative and sales department employee, sought workers' compensation benefits for posttraumatic stress disorder and depression, which she attributed to job-related stress. She experienced panic attacks starting in January 1994, leading to a leave of absence and cessation of work by April 1994. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim, finding that the stress resulted from lawful personnel decisions and was not greater than that experienced by her coworkers. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support these findings under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7).

Workers' CompensationPsychic InjuryWork-Related StressPanic AttackPosttraumatic Stress DisorderDepressionLawful Personnel DecisionJob TransferWork EvaluationAppellate Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 404 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