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

In re Carew

The court considered two child abuse petitions filed by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services against a father, based on unsworn statements from his three and five-year-old children. The respondent father moved for psychiatric evaluations of the children and their mother to defend against the allegations, citing the need for expert assessment of the children's credibility. The court balanced the children's welfare against the father's right to a fair trial, noting the unique challenges of corroborating out-of-court statements in Article 10 proceedings. The court granted the father's request to the extent of ordering a validation interview for both children, stipulating a court-designated examiner if parties could not agree. The request for the mother's examination was denied due to insufficient justification.

Child AbuseFamily Court ActPsychiatric EvaluationChild CredibilityHearsay TestimonyCorroboration RequirementDue ProcessParental RightsSuffolk CountyUnsworn Statements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
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

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. ADJ2628303
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

GLORIA CAIRES vs. SHARP HEALTHCARE, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Appeals Board rescinded the original award and returned the case for further proceedings due to insufficient medical evidence on apportionment. Specifically, the Board found that the opinions of the orthopedic and psychiatric medical evaluators regarding the apportionment of permanent disability lacked substantial medical evidence. The orthopedic evaluator's apportionment methodology, referencing an AMA Guides example, was deemed improper under current Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664. The psychiatric evaluator's apportionment was also found insufficient as it did not adequately explain how psychiatric permanent disability should be apportioned separately from injury causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability ApportionmentQualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent ImpairmentRange of Motion MethodDiagnosis-Related Estimate (DRE) MethodCompensable ConsequenceCausation of Permanent DisabilitySubstantial Medical Evidence
References
12
Case No. ADJ4155359 (OXN 0143340)
Regular
May 23, 2014

LISA SMITH vs. AGOURA WESTLAKE ANIMAL HOSPITAL, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant Agoura Westlake Animal Hospital sought removal from an order continuing the case to trial on psychiatric injury and sleeplessness, arguing they should have obtained a supplemental QME report first. The Appeals Board denied this petition, agreeing with the WCJ that the psychiatric injury issue was ready for trial as both parties had QME evaluations. The Board found no abuse of discretion in the WCJ treating the hearing as a Mandatory Settlement Conference rather than a status conference. One Commissioner dissented, believing removal should be granted to allow the supplemental QME evaluation due to applicant's refusal to attend and the lack of trial readiness for psychiatric injury.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Injury to PsycheSleeplessnessMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)Petition to CompelWCJ (Workers' Compensation Judge)Appeals BoardIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. 03-00-00766-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2002

Jacqueline Tomhave v. the Oaks Psychiatric Hospital, Inc.

Jacqueline Tomhave, a therapist, was terminated by The Oaks Psychiatric Hospital after inquiring about an alleged inappropriate relationship between an employee and a juvenile resident. She claimed whistleblower protection under the Texas Health & Safety Code, asserting a causal link between her report and termination. The hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing Tomhave was fired for violating various policies and procedures concerning the juvenile's treatment and discharge. This dissenting opinion contends that Tomhave failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut the hospital's legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons, arguing that temporal proximity and subjective belief alone are insufficient. The dissent concludes that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in the hospital's favor.

Whistleblower ActRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawMental Health FacilityPolicy ViolationsTherapist TerminationTravis CountyTexas Court of AppealsCausation Element
References
24
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
Showing 1-10 of 3,042 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