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

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. 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

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

Robinson v. Sanchez

This posttrial motion concerns a jury's verdict that continued psychiatric care was not essential for petitioner Calvin Robinson, despite finding him mentally ill. Justice Suarez determined the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's finding regarding the need for continued care and treatment. The court found clear and convincing evidence that Robinson is mentally ill, poses a danger to himself and others, and his judgment is impaired, rendering him unable to understand his need for care. Robinson has a long history of self-harm, assaultive behavior, and medication non-compliance when unsupervised, contradicting his general denials. Consequently, the court set aside the jury's verdict and affirmed the original retention order, mandating his continued involuntary psychiatric care.

Mental IllnessInvoluntary CommitmentPsychiatric InstitutionPosttrial MotionJury Verdict Set AsideSufficiency of EvidenceDanger to SelfDanger to OthersImpaired JudgmentMedication Non-compliance
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2001

In re Trebor UU.

Respondent, the mother of two sons, Trebor (born in 1992) and Tahran (born in 1994), appealed an order from the Family Court of Clinton County which terminated her parental rights on the grounds of mental illness. The children had been in the care and custody of the petitioner since December 1998, following a prior finding of neglect. In October 2000, the petitioner filed a petition to terminate parental rights. The Family Court determined that respondent suffered from a mental illness, as defined by Social Services Law § 384-b (6) (a), rendering her unable to provide proper and adequate care for her children for the present and foreseeable future. Respondent challenged the expert testimony's methodology and the sufficiency of evidence regarding her future incapacity. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the expert testimony was sufficiently based and that there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent's mental illness prevented her from caring for her children, despite conflicting expert opinions on future improvement.

Parental Rights TerminationMental Illness (Parent)Family Court ActSocial Services LawExpert TestimonyClinical PsychologyPersonality DisorderAppellate DecisionChild WelfareForeseeability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2012

Claim of Smith v. Oneida Ltd.

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning her husband's death benefits. In 1991, the decedent sustained a compensable lung injury, leading to permanent partial disability and continuous workers' compensation benefits until his death in September 2010. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed that the death was causally related to his work-related illness, awarding death benefits to the claimant. The self-insured employer and its claims administrator appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing that a compensable illness need not be the sole cause of death, only a contributing factor. Evidence included the death certificate listing sepsis and respiratory failure, and a C-64 medical report from the decedent's long-term physician stating the death was directly or indirectly caused by the work-related illness.

death benefitscausal relationshipoccupational illnessrespiratory failuresepsispermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation Board appealmedical report evidencecontributing factor
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Hime Y.

This appeal concerns the termination of a natural mother's parental rights to her children, Suzanne and Hime, focusing on the ground of 'mental illness.' Previously, the case involving Suzanne was remanded due to an erroneous 'no-fault' theory, and a separate proceeding for Hime had dismissed termination, granting custody to foster parents with visitation rights for the mother. The appellate court now scrutinizes the record for the first time regarding the 'mentally ill' contention, considering medical reports, caseworker testimonies, and drawing an unfavorable inference from the mother's failure to present her own psychiatric evidence. The court found 'clear and convincing' proof that the mother suffered from a residual form of schizophrenia, preventing her from properly caring for Hime and putting the child in danger of neglect. Consequently, the Family Court's order dismissing causes relating to Hime was modified; the petition to terminate parental rights based on mental illness was granted, the mother's visitation privileges were vacated, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessSchizophreniaChild NeglectAppellate ReviewFamily Court ActSocial Services LawVisitation RightsFoster CarePsychiatric Evaluation
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,259 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