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

Mott v. Central New York Psychiatric Center

The claimant, a guard at a state-run psychiatric center, suffered a work-related injury and received workers’ compensation benefits. During his disability, he used personal leave time for which he received full wages. The employer sought reimbursement for these advance payments, but the Workers’ Compensation Board denied reimbursement for the personal leave portion. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, differentiating personal leave from sick leave by noting that personal leave could not be accrued or converted, thus not conferring a permanent benefit to the employer or a detriment to the claimant. The court concluded that denying reimbursement would result in the claimant receiving both full wages and compensation for the same period, a disfavored outcome, and therefore, reimbursement should be granted.

ReimbursementAdvance PaymentsPersonal LeaveSick LeaveWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDisabilityEmployer ReimbursementDisproportionate ResultAppellate DivisionNew York
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kevin M. v. South Beach Psychiatric Center

Kevin M. was arrested for stalking Grammy-winning singer Robyn Fenty (Rihanna) after sending her hundreds of delusional letters and frequently appearing near her Manhattan apartment. Found unfit to stand trial, he was civilly committed to South Beach Psychiatric Center (SBPC). During a subsequent hearing, medical experts testified to his severe psychotic disorder, continuous delusions, and assessment as a danger to himself and others. The court denied Kevin M.'s application for release, finding existing Mental Hygiene Law inadequate to protect Ms. Fenty. Exercising its general equity jurisdiction, the court issued a permanent injunction and an order of protection, prohibiting Kevin M. from any contact with Ms. Fenty or her properties, and allowing for immediate arrest if violated, addressing perceived gaps in New York law concerning dangerously mentally ill individuals with specific targets.

StalkingMental IllnessInvoluntary CommitmentOrder of ProtectionPermanent InjunctionPsychotic DisorderPublic SafetyCriminal Procedure LawMental Hygiene LawEquity Jurisdiction
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Regenbogen v. New York State Willard Psychiatric Center

The case involves an appeal regarding a workers' compensation claim for mental injury filed by a former employee of Willard Psychiatric Center, who later worked for the Workers’ Compensation Board. The claim, initially found compensable, faced jurisdictional challenges after a March 1997 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 20 (2) (a) mandated neutral arbitration for Board employees' claims pending on or after its effective date. The court found that the Workers’ Compensation Board lacked jurisdiction to issue its June 1997 amended decision because the claim was still 'pending' after the amendment's effective date. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the entire matter for arbitration, emphasizing that the legislative intent was to remove any appearance of partiality in such claims.

Workers' Compensation BoardJurisdictional DisputeRetroactive Application of LawStatutory AmendmentArbitration MandateMental Stress ClaimAppellate ProcedurePending ClaimsBoard Employee ClaimsAdministrative Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Keser v. New York State Elmira Psychiatric Center

This case addresses whether late payment penalty provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) apply to reimbursements made by an employer’s compensation carrier for wages paid during an employee's disability, and if so, whether they apply when reimbursement is in a form other than monetary payment to the employee. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, answering both questions in the affirmative. A 20% penalty was upheld against the State Insurance Fund for late reimbursement to the New York State Elmira Psychiatric Center, the employer of claimant Peter Keser. The ruling emphasizes that for penalty purposes, no distinction should be made between awards payable directly to claimants and those payable to an employer as reimbursement, and the mechanics of payment (e.g., accounting credit) do not alter the need for timely compliance with award terms, promoting prompt payment of workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' CompensationLate Payment PenaltyEmployer ReimbursementDisability BenefitsStatutory InterpretationSection 25(3)(f)Compensation DefinitionCarrier LiabilityPrompt PaymentAccrued Leave
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Radigan v. Radigan

This matrimonial action involves an appeal from an order denying a motion for a psychiatric examination. Both parties seek custody of their 15-year-old son. An initial evaluation by a social worker, based only on interviews, recommended custody to the plaintiff wife. The defendant husband moved for a psychiatric examination citing the superficiality of the social worker's report and concerns about his son's mental health. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granting the motion to the extent that the plaintiff, their son, and the defendant must all undergo examination by a court-appointed psychiatrist, with costs borne by the defendant.

Matrimonial LawCustody DisputePsychiatric ExaminationAppellate ReviewCPLR 3121Mental Health EvaluationFamily ServicesAlcoholismChild CounselingCourt-Appointed Expert
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ludwig v. ROCHESTER PSYCHIATRIC CENTER

Plaintiff Annie Ludwig, a former Psychiatric Nurse II, brought an action against her former employer, Rochester Psychiatric Center (RPC), and the New York State Office of Mental Health, alleging unlawful retaliation in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York Human Rights Law. Ludwig claimed she was subjected to disciplinary actions and reassignment after reporting sexual harassment by a coworker. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court determined that Ludwig failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or to demonstrate that the defendants' legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for her discipline and transfer were pretextual. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Employment RetaliationSexual HarassmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting AnalysisPretext
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Handicapped Child

The Orchard Park Central School District (District) sought a court-ordered subpoena for psychiatric and psychological records of an infant student from the Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center. The District intended to use these records in an appeal initiated by the student's parents concerning the child's handicapping condition. The parents cross-moved to quash the subpoena, asserting the records were privileged and their consent for release had been withdrawn. Justice Thomas P. Flaherty ruled that no legislative exception existed to abrogate the physician-patient and psychologist-client privileges in this context, especially over parental objection. Consequently, the court denied the District's motion for the subpoena and granted the parents' cross-motion to quash, underscoring the protection of confidential communications in a child's best interests.

Education LawStudent RecordsPsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashParental RightsCommittee on HandicappedFair Hearing
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Fratt

The defendant, charged with second-degree murder, provided notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence from Dr. Martha Rosen, a defense-retained psychologist, who would testify about dependent personality disorder and 'battered woman's syndrome.' The prosecution subsequently moved for an order compelling Dr. Rosen to prepare a report outlining her findings and evaluations, and for the discovery of her notes. The court granted the prosecution's motion, ruling that the defendant waived psychologist-patient privilege by placing her mental state at issue. The court further held that CPL 250.10, read in conjunction with CPLR 3101(d), requires the defense to provide a detailed notice of psychiatric evidence, including expert qualifications, examination details, relied-upon materials, diagnostic opinions, and the bases for those opinions. The court denied the motion for a pretrial hearing as premature.

Psychiatric EvidenceDiscoveryExpert TestimonyPsychologist-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeCriminal Procedure LawCivil Practice Law and RulesMental StateBattered Woman's SyndromeForensic Evaluation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matsa v. Wallach

The petitioner, a former Psychiatric Social Worker at Creedmoor State Hospital, was dismissed from her probationary role as Psychiatric Social Work Supervisor II at Brooklyn State Hospital after 26 weeks for unsatisfactory performance. She initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing her position became permanent after a 12-week probationary period and her dismissal was in bad faith. While Special Term agreed, the appellate court reversed, clarifying that her appointment was an original one subject to a 26-week probation. The court found proper notice for the extended probation and no evidence of bad faith in her dismissal.

Probationary PeriodCivil Service LawInterinstitutional PromotionOpen Competitive ExaminationDismissalUnsatisfactory PerformanceBad FaithReinstatementArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1997

Claim of Crawford v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant who sustained a finger injury from a hypodermic needle in 1987. After an initial workers' compensation award, the case was reopened in 1993 when the claimant asserted a claim for a consequential posttraumatic neurosis or 'AIDS reaction phobia'. The employer argued that the two-year Statute of Limitations under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 barred the psychiatric claim. However, the Board rejected this argument and affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision to address the psychiatric condition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that Section 28 does not bar amendment of a timely claim to include consequential injuries if a relationship exists between the subsequent claim and the initial injury.

Psychiatric Injury ClaimStatute of Limitations Workers' CompConsequential Psychological InjuriesHypodermic Needle InjuryAIDS Reaction PhobiaWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSection 28 BarAmendment of Timely ClaimCausally Related Disability
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 949 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