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

People v. Baranek

The defendant appealed his conviction for burglary and robbery, arguing he was denied his right to confront witnesses and present a defense. The trial court had precluded cross-examination of the complainant regarding her psychiatric history, denied the introduction of her psychiatric records, and barred expert testimony on her condition. The complainant, with a 20-year psychiatric history, exhibited persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations, particularly about people breaking into her home. The appellate court agreed, finding that the cumulative effect of these errors denied the defendant a fair trial. The court ruled that the jury should have been made aware of the complainant's psychiatric history to assess the reliability of her testimony, especially given the nature of her delusions, and therefore reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial.

Criminal LawRight to ConfrontationCross-ExaminationPsychiatric HistoryExpert TestimonyWitness CredibilityMental IllnessFair TrialEvidentiary RulesAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peeples v. Home Indemnity Co.

Billy R. Peeples, an injured worker, appealed a trial court's decision regarding psychiatric treatment expenses for a knee injury sustained while employed by Friedrich Refrigeration. Peeples, the claimant, sought compensation from Home Indemnity Company, the carrier. The trial jury awarded workers' compensation but denied payment for psychiatric treatment, finding it was not reasonably required as a result of the leg injury. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in excluding testimony from Dr. George Schlagenhauf, the treating psychiatrist, concerning the diagnosis and necessity of the treatment. Furthermore, the jury's finding against the necessity of psychiatric care was deemed against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, as Dr. Schlagenhauf's testimony on necessity was uncontradicted. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationPsychiatric TreatmentMedical ExpensesAdmissibility of EvidenceSufficiency of EvidenceKnee InjuryDepressionMedical NecessityAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Graham

Defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree, stemming from incidents at the Albany County Airport on March 8, 1984. The complainant alleged that after meeting the defendant for a drug transaction, he raped and sodomized her at knifepoint in his car, with his brother-in-law present. She initially provided false details to police to conceal her intent to purchase drugs but later corrected her statement, which was corroborated by the brother-in-law who received immunity. The defendant denied any involvement, claiming only a casual acquaintance. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's refusal to provide the complainant's psychiatric history, alleged insufficient corroboration for the accomplice's testimony, claimed denial of exculpatory material, cited juror misconduct, and argued against the admission of certain witness testimony. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion regarding the psychiatric records, sufficient corroboration, that any exculpatory evidence would not have altered the verdict, and that the trial court correctly denied a mistrial. Additionally, the court found the admission of certain testimony to be harmless error and upheld the consecutive sentences of 12.5 to 25 years given the heinous nature of the crimes and the defendant's extensive criminal record.

Rape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeAlbany County Airport IncidentWitness CredibilityPsychiatric HistoryAccomplice TestimonyCorroboration CPL 60.22Brady ViolationExculpatory MaterialJuror Misconduct
References
5
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
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

Claim of Guz v. Jewelers Machinist, Inc.

A factory worker claimant sustained a work-related injury in March 2002, leading to a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The case was established for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, later amended to include a neck injury and aggravated back condition. In 2007, a major depressive disorder was added, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causally related psychiatric disability. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this finding. The claimant appealed this reversal. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that the claimant bears the burden of establishing a causal relationship with competent medical evidence and that the Board is the sole judge of witness credibility. The court found that the Board’s determination, which was based on rejecting the claimant's treating psychiatrist's testimony due to lack of complete information and relying on subjective accounts, was supported by substantial evidence.

Psychiatric DisabilityMajor Depressive DisorderCausationMedical EvidenceExpert TestimonyWitness CredibilityWorkers’ Compensation BenefitsCarpal Tunnel SyndromeNeck InjuryBack Condition
References
11
Case No. ADJ3357317 (OAK 0311479)
Regular
May 04, 2016

MERY CORDOBA vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, YORK RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Mery Cordoba's petition for reconsideration. Applicant sought reconsideration of the denial of her psychiatric injury claim, arguing that her trial testimony revealed new information not considered by the Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs). The Board found that the applicant's testimony regarding childhood molestation and a past stable marriage was unrelated to work events and did not meet the burden of proof for a predominantly work-related psychiatric injury. Furthermore, the Board held that discovery was properly closed, and the applicant had ample opportunity to present this information to the QMEs.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDIN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICESYORK RISK SERVICESPetition for ReconsiderationDENIEDwcjtimely filedDate of Injurycare providerneck
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,614 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