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. 2021 NY Slip Op 03236 [194 AD3d 1300]
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Matter of Casey v. United Ref. Co. of Pa.

Cheryl A. Casey, a store manager, filed a workers' compensation claim for a mental injury, specifically posttraumatic stress disorder with depression/anxiety, following a threatening encounter with a customer. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, determining that the stress experienced by the claimant was not greater than that of other similarly situated workers. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion, noting the absence of physical assault or an actual weapon during the incident and that the situation was not vastly different from expected stressors in a 24-hour convenience store management role.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsMental InjuryPosttraumatic Stress DisorderAnxietyDepressionCausally-Related InjuryStress in WorkplaceSimilarly Situated WorkersStore ManagerCustomer Incident
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Forbes

Claimant, a psychiatric social worker, was reclassified as an 'independent contractor' by Brooklyn Center for Families in Crisis, Inc. for the last six months of her employment, receiving an hourly rate. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the Center exercised sufficient direction and control over her work, establishing her status as an employee and thus her eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. Despite the re-designation, the claimant continued to treat the same patients in the same manner on the Center’s premises, worked under a supervisor, and the Center established the fees. The court affirmed the Board’s ruling, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant and similarly situated individuals were employees of the Center.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationPsychiatric Social WorkerEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardEmployee BenefitsEmployment StatusAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
2
Case No. SFO 0493727
Regular
Dec 21, 2007

JOAN JUSTER vs. MARC LUMER & COMPANY, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that awarded the applicant 82% permanent disability for a psyche injury. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the defendants failed to prove apportionment of the applicant's permanent disability despite prior situational depression episodes. The Board also noted that any clerical error regarding attorney fees could be addressed by the WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryPsycheSituational DepressionDSM-IVAttorney FeesPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
3
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
Sep 30, 2011

Claim of Cerda v. New York Racing Ass'n

The claimant, an identification manager, resigned due to perceived insufficient employer response regarding concerns over issuing credentials to individuals with potential immigration issues. A year later, she filed for workers' compensation benefits, citing work-related stress, anxiety, and depression. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed her claim, concluding her stress was not greater than that experienced by similarly situated workers. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the claimant did not suffer a compensable injury, deferring to its credibility assessments.

Workers' CompensationStress-related InjuryMental InjuryWorkplace EnvironmentResignationEmployer LiabilityCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewImmigration Issues
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05275 [187 AD3d 1282]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2020

Matter of Rivenburg v. County of Albany

Claimant, a correction officer, sought workers' compensation benefits for mental health injuries, including PTSD, anxiety, insomnia, and depression, following incidents where inmates threatened his family and a colleague became aggressive. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding no compensable injury, as the stress experienced was not greater than that of other similarly situated correction officers. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant did not sustain a compensable injury because the work-related stress was not beyond what is normally experienced in that profession.

Workers' CompensationMental Injury ClaimPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Correction OfficerWork-Related StressSubstantial Evidence ReviewCompensabilityNormal Work EnvironmentEmotional DistressAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05834
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Issayou v. Issayuou Inc.

Claimant, a hair salon owner, suffered a myocardial infarction at work. She filed for workers' compensation benefits, asserting that stressful interactions with customers caused her heart attack and consequential depression and anxiety. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, leading to conflicting medical testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding that the heart attack did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the stress experienced by the claimant was not greater than that encountered by other similarly situated workers and that her conditions were not causally related to her employment.

Workers' CompensationMyocardial InfarctionCausationStress-related InjuryPreexisting ConditionMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewHeart AttackEmployment Stress
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guillo v. NYC Housing Authority

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from February 6, 2013, which denied her claim for benefits related to work-induced depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder. The Board had reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's finding, concluding that the claimant failed to demonstrate that the work-related stress was 'greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced.' The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported that the stress was not unusual. The court also noted that claimant's argument regarding a stress-related physical injury was unpreserved for review due to not being raised before the Board.

work-related depressionoccupational stressmental injury claimunusual stress standardworkers' compensation benefits denialappellate affirmanceemployer's testimony creditedclaimant's credibilityunpreserved argument
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Parrinello v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a level II supervisor, experienced chest pains and lightheadedness at work, leading to a diagnosis of stress. He sought workers' compensation benefits for work-related heart problems, anxiety, and depression. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits, finding a work-related accident. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling that the claimant's stress was not greater than that experienced by other similarly situated workers. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that the claimant failed to demonstrate exceptional stress compared to his peers, which is a prerequisite for compensability of work-related stress claims.

Work-related StressWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate ReviewPsychological InjurySupervisor StressSubstantial EvidenceClaim DenialBoard ReversalMedical EvidenceEmployment Stress
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 465 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