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

Scodary v. Serritella

Claimant established a work-related neck and left arm injury, receiving workers’ compensation benefits for a brief period in December 2003. Her employment was terminated in January 2004, leading to new issues regarding further causally related disability, consequential depression, and withdrawal from the labor market. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim for consequential depression, asserting that her psychologist's treatment lacked the required referral from an authorized physician under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-m (2) (a). The appellate court ruled this exclusion of evidence was an error, stating the statute does not create an evidentiary barrier to a psychologist's testimony and records, even without a physician referral. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the exclusion of evidence for consequential depression, and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsConsequential DepressionPsychologist TestimonyReferral RequirementEvidentiary StandardsCausally Related DisabilityLoss of EarningsAppellate ReviewRemittalMedical Evidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. 2019-01-0399
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2021

Tate, Meshia v. Daryl Doney d/b/a Middle Tennessee Respiratory

The employee, Meshia Tate, suffered a work-related wrist injury and later a knee injury, treated by authorized physician Dr. Martin Fiala, who performed surgeries and eventually placed her at maximum medical improvement. Dissatisfied, Tate sought an unauthorized second opinion from Dr. Jeffrey Peterson, who recommended further treatment and believed a subsequent meniscal tear was work-related. The trial court sided with Tate, accepting Dr. Peterson's causation opinion and replacing Dr. Fiala as the authorized treating physician, citing Dr. Fiala's perceived failure to treat ongoing symptoms and the employer's initial failure to provide a panel of physicians. On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence did not support the causation finding for the new meniscal tear or the replacement of the authorized physician, especially given Dr. Fiala's willingness to continue treatment. The Board emphasized the lack of sufficient expert medical testimony for causation and the need to follow proper procedures for changing authorized physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentCausationMeniscal TearWrist InjuryKnee InjuryTreating PhysicianMaximum Medical ImprovementDegenerative ConditionExpedited Hearing
References
6
Case No. ADJ1488656 (LBO 0306208) ADJ4190554 (LBO 0365076) ADJ4297163 (LBO 0302764) ADJ4306223 (LBO 0322527)
Regular
Jan 12, 2010

CHARLIE A. WOOTEN (CHARLINE ANN WOOTEN) vs. BARLOW RESPIRATORY HOSPITAL, INTERCARE PASADENA, ZENITH

This case involves multiple consolidated claims by applicant Charlie A. Wooten against Barlow Respiratory Hospital and others. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of the prior judge's decision. The WCAB rescinded that decision and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ. This action is not a final determination of the merits, and parties retain their rights to further reconsideration.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEWCJRESCINDEDFURTHER PROCEEDINGSDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONTRIAL LEVELPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONBARLOW RESPIRATORY HOSPITAL
References
0
Case No. 11-05-00417-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2008

State Office of Risk Management v. Belinda Baker

This workers' compensation case involves the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealing an award to Belinda Baker for depression, which she claimed resulted from a work fall. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission found her injury extended to include depression. SORM sought judicial review. The trial court granted Baker's motion for a directed verdict, concluding SORM failed to present evidence that Baker's injury did not cause her depression recurrence. The appellate court found that SORM did create fact issues regarding the extension of the injury to include depression. The court identified ample evidence of other potential stressors contributing to Baker's depression recurrence, such as marital issues, family illness, and a long history of recurrent major depressive disorder predating the work injury. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers CompensationDepressionMental HealthPreexisting ConditionDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewCausationMedical EvidenceTexas LawRelapse
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2001

Claim of Multari v. Keenan Oil Co.

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from July 25, 2001, which found that a section 32 waiver agreement included his major depression condition. The claimant had settled two compensation cases from 1972 and 1994 for $93,000, closing both. He later argued the agreement failed to cover his major depression, established in 1996 in conjunction with the 1994 accident. The Board affirmed its jurisdiction and rejected the claimant's contention that the major depression was excluded. The appellate court agreed the Board had jurisdiction to determine if a condition was included in a section 32 agreement. On the merits, the court found the Board correctly concluded the major depression condition was subsumed in the settlement, citing the agreement's unequivocal terms and the claimant's hearing testimony. The agreement stated cases could not be reopened "for any purpose whatsoever" and permanently discontinued weekly benefits that included compensation for depression.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementMajor DepressionPsychiatric ConditionJurisdictionSection 32 AgreementAppealBoard ReviewScope of Agreement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2001

Claim of McCabe v. Watertown Correctional Facility

Claimant, a correction officer, worked long, exhaustive shifts in extremely cold conditions during a severe ice storm in January 1998, leading to an upper respiratory infection and pneumonia. Despite his illness, he continued to work, subsequently experiencing seizures and being diagnosed with postencephalitic epilepsy on February 11, 1998. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board established his case, finding accident, notice, and causal relationship, but the employer appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing uncontroverted medical evidence that the claimant's severe fatigue from his work environment depressed his immune system, making him susceptible to the virus causing his epilepsy.

Workers' CompensationPostencephalitic EpilepsyWork-Related IllnessImmune System DepressionExtreme Weather ConditionsCorrection OfficerOccupational HazardCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence
References
5
Case No. 532120
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Bugianishvili v. Alliance Refrig. Inc.

Archil Bugianishvili, a mechanic, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an April 2016 incident where he was exposed to toxic gas, leading to respiratory, neurological ailments, posttraumatic stress disorder, and major depression. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined he had a permanent total disability as of November 2019, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The employer, Alliance Refrigeration Inc., and its carrier appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial medical evidence from an independent medical examination supported the permanent total disability ruling. The Court also upheld the Board's decision against apportionment for a separate burn incident and declined to allow further development of the record.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityToxic Gas ExposureRespiratory AilmentsNeurological AilmentsPosttraumatic Stress DisorderMajor DepressionIndependent Medical ExaminationMaximum Medical ImprovementApportionment
References
7
Case No. 12 Civ. 6451(PAC)(SN)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2014

Miller v. Colvin

Plaintiff Terrie A. Miller sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The plaintiff alleged disability due to various impairments including heart problems, depression, bipolar disorder, panic attacks, scoliosis, and asthma. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John P. Costello found that while Plaintiff had several severe impairments, they did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment. The ALJ determined Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform light work with specific limitations, such as performing simple tasks only, avoiding heavy machinery and respiratory irritants, and working primarily alone. Based on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff could perform jobs like photocopy machine operator or collator operator. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with legal standards, thus denying Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeAdministrative Law Judge DecisionResidual Functional CapacityMental Health ImpairmentPhysical ImpairmentChronic PainCardiac ArrhythmiaScoliosis
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Velez v. Modern Linens & Towels

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1998, later including major depression, and was deemed to have a permanent partial disability. A 2003 settlement agreement for a $50,000 lump sum under Workers' Compensation Law § 32, with counsel fees, was approved by the Workers’ Compensation Board in February 2004. Claimant subsequently sought to reopen the case, requesting a late payment penalty and challenging the agreement for excluding his depressive disorder. The Board denied both requests, determining no late penalty was due as the agreement was not properly "submitted" per former regulations, and the agreement precluded further compensation for the psychological injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that without a hearing, the agreement was not 'submitted' to trigger late penalties, and upholding the Board's discretionary approval. The court also rejected the contention to nullify the agreement regarding depression, citing a prior finding that the causal relationship between employment and depression had terminated and benefits were focused on the back injury.

Workers' Compensation Law § 32Settlement AgreementLate Payment PenaltyPermanent Partial DisabilityMajor DepressionBoard ApprovalDiscretionary AuthorityWorkers' Compensation BoardLump Sum SettlementCounsel Fees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 392 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