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. 10-06-00338-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2008

State Office of Risk Management v. Carolyn Larkins

This workers' compensation case involved Carolyn Larkins, an employee who sustained psychological injuries after an on-the-job assault. The trial court reversed an administrative decision, finding Larkins's psychological conditions compensable and assigning a 70% impairment rating. The State Office of Risk Management appealed, arguing a lack of legally sufficient evidence, specifically that expert testimony was required to link her psychological disorders to the injury. The appellate court agreed, stating that medical records alone were insufficient to establish causation within reasonable medical probability for complex psychological conditions like depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationExpert TestimonyCausationPsychological InjuryLegal SufficiencyMedical RecordsAppellate ReviewRemandTexas LawMental Health
References
21
Case No. ADJ6668989
Regular
Feb 02, 2018

KAREN GIBBS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; Legally Uninsured; adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award finding the applicant permanently totally disabled. The defendant argued the applicant should not be allowed to include psychological and sleep disorder injuries, that the sleep disorder rating was improperly duplicated, and that the vocational expert failed to account for apportionment. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the defendant stipulated to the inclusion of psychological and sleep disorder injuries. Furthermore, the medical and vocational evidence supported the permanent total disability finding even without those additions, and the defendant waived the apportionment issue by not challenging the WCJ's finding of no legal basis for apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardPetition to ReopenPermanent Total DisabilityCumulative Trauma InjuryRadiculopathyPsyche DisorderSleep DisorderAgreed Medical Examiners
References
3
Case No. 535958
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Melissa Anderson

Claimant, a teacher, sought workers' compensation benefits for psychological injuries (major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder) resulting from COVID-19 exposure and anxiety about students returning to school. Her claim was initially disallowed by a WCLJ and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found the stress was not greater than that in a normal work environment for similarly situated teachers. On appeal, the claimant argued that the Board applied disparate burdens for physical vs. psychological COVID-19-related injuries. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, clarified that psychological injuries are compensable to the same extent as physical injuries and that the 'greater than normal work environment' standard should not be applied to diminish consideration of an individual's vulnerabilities. The Court found the Board's inconsistent application of rules for COVID-19 exposure violated the principle of parity. The decision was reversed, and the matter remitted for reconsideration, requiring the Board to determine if a workplace accident occurred due to specific exposure or elevated risk from COVID-19, considering claimant's vulnerabilities and causal connection.

Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryCOVID-19 ExposureMental HealthStress-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCausal ConnectionSimilarly Situated WorkersDue Process
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clear Water Psychological Services PC v. American Transit Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Clear Water Psychological Services PC sought no-fault benefits from defendant American Transit Insurance Company. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for a 90-day stay, arguing that the assignor, Oshane Crooks, was acting as an employee at the time of the November 10, 2014 automobile accident, falling under Workers’ Compensation Board jurisdiction. A key issue was the admissibility of an uncertified police accident report (MV-104AN) which suggested the assignor was driving a taxi. The court ruled the uncertified report inadmissible under CPLR 4518 (c) for authentication reasons, despite the officer's personal observations. However, acknowledging the unresolved factual question of the assignor’s employment status and the Workers’ Compensation Board's primary jurisdiction, the court granted the defendant’s motion, staying the action for 90 days for a Workers’ Compensation Law applicability determination.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentStay of actionWorkers' CompensationPolice accident reportAdmissibility of evidenceCPLR 4518Vehicle and Traffic LawPrimary jurisdictionEmployment status
References
12
Case No. 2015-455 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

This case involves Metro Psychological Services, P.C., as an assignee, seeking first-party no-fault benefits from Travelers Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the assignor's injuries occurred during employment, which would make workers' compensation benefits applicable. The Civil Court denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Term reversed this order, concluding there was an unresolved issue as to whether the plaintiff's assignor was acting in the course of employment at the time of the accident. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Civil Court to be held in abeyance, pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law, underscoring the Board's primary jurisdiction in such matters.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeMedical ProviderAssigneeCourse of Employment
References
9
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. 2021 NY Slip Op 04626 [197 AD3d 518]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2021

D. S. v. Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources, P.C.

This case involves an appeal by the Port Jefferson School District from an order denying its motion to dismiss a personal injury complaint. The infant plaintiff, a special education student, was allegedly injured by a therapist, Vito Silecchia, during a behavioral therapy session. The plaintiffs sued the School District, among others, alleging Silecchia was an employee or agent. The District contended Silecchia was an independent contractor retained through Positive Behavior Support Consulting and Psychological Resources, P.C. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the dismissal motion, stating that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action and that documentary evidence did not conclusively establish an independent contractor relationship, given provisions in the agreement suggesting the District maintained some control over the services.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySchool District LiabilitySpecial EducationTherapist NegligenceCPLR 3211 (a) (1)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schmeling v. New Venture Gear

The claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits in 2001, alleging stress-induced injuries caused by psychological harassment at her workplace. She was diagnosed with several psychological disorders, including schizo-affective disorder and depression. Although ongoing medical treatment was required, both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that no causal relationship existed between her disability and her employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in evaluating medical witness credibility regarding causation. The decision was supported by substantial evidence, as the Board weighed conflicting medical opinions from various physicians.

Psychological harassmentStress-induced injuryCausationMedical credibilityWorkers' Compensation BoardSubstantial evidencePsychiatric disabilityAppellate reviewDiscretion of BoardMental health claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cook-Schoonover v. Corning Hospital

Claimant, an employee at Corning Hospital, suffered psychological injuries due to a verbally harassing work environment from coworkers Lori Glass and Michelle Lewis, leading to hospitalizations and a diagnosis of anxiety attacks, panic disorder, and depression. She filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were initially dismissed by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but later found compensable by the Workers’ Compensation Board, supported by medical reports from Frank Bourke, Michael Cilip, and Albert Wolkoff. The employer and carrier appealed, alleging due process violations, but the court found no record of these requests. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence from claimant's testimony and medical reports, and emphasized that psychic injury can result from extended emotional stress and pre-existing vulnerability does not preclude benefits.

work-related stresspsychological injuryhostile work environmentverbal harassmentpanic disorderdepressionworkers' compensation benefitsmedical evidencewitness credibilitydue process
References
9
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
Showing 1-10 of 837 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