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. 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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gannon v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

The claimant, a seasonal auditor, sought workers' compensation benefits due to alleged exposure to paint fumes, pesticides, and other airborne toxins at her workplace in Albany, resulting in symptoms like dizziness, heart palpitations, and later, upper airway irritation and liver damage. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled she suffered an accidental injury from paint fume exposure in September 1992 but found no continuing causally related disability. Medical experts testified that the claimant's symptoms were primarily manifestations of an anxiety disorder, not environmental contaminants, and that any effects from paint fumes would be short-lived. The decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was affirmed, as there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the claimant did not suffer from any continuing disability attributable to the accident or other alleged exposures.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityEnvironmental ContaminantsPaint Fumes ExposureAnxiety DisorderPsychiatric SymptomsLiver DamageMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2000

Claim of Abdallah v. New York City Department of Transportation

The claimant was awarded workers' compensation benefits for an anxiety disorder resulting from continuous harassment at the New York City Department of Transportation. The employer appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for an accident and lack of credible medical testimony. The claimant testified to being subjected to retaliatory harassment for six years after reporting corruption, leading to a transfer to the night shift and subsequent onset of physical and psychological symptoms, diagnosed as an anxiety disorder. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the harassment constituted unusual environmental conditions causing an accidental injury and accepted the claimant's expert medical testimony linking the psychic disability to the work-related injury. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence, despite conflicting medical opinions.

Workers' CompensationHarassmentRetaliationWhistleblowingAnxiety DisorderPsychic InjuryCausationExpert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1996

Claim of Palevsky v. New York City Board of Education

In 1986, while working as an education associate in the Bronx, the claimant sustained a fractured nose due to a student altercation and filed a timely workers' compensation claim, receiving benefits. The case remained open for a pending nasal surgery issue. Years later, in 1992, the claimant sought compensation for alleged consequential posttraumatic stress disorder. The self-insured employer, the New York City Board of Education, argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 28, a two-year statute of limitations, barred this new claim. However, both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed that Section 28 does not apply to consequential injuries. Upon appeal, the Court concurred, holding that a subsequent claim for disability compensation related to injuries in an earlier, timely claim is not barred by the two-year limit for amendment.

Workers' CompensationPosttraumatic Stress DisorderStatute of LimitationsConsequential InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Time BarBoard DecisionAppealWorkplace InjuryNasal Fracture
References
3
Case No. 10 Civ. 3314; 10 Civ. 5013
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2010

Alzheimer's Foundation of America, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This consolidated opinion addresses dueling motions to dismiss in two civil actions involving the Alzheimer’s Foundation of Americas, Inc. (the "Foundation") and the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the "Association"). The Foundation initiated a lawsuit alleging misrepresentation, trademark dilution, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, conversion, and UCC violations against the Association and Northern Trust. Conversely, the Association filed its own complaint asserting claims of trademark infringement, libel, injurious falsehood, false designation, dilution, fraud, tortious interference, injury to business reputation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy against the Foundation and several individuals. The court denied motions to dismiss the Lanham Act, dilution, and unfair competition claims for both parties, but granted motions to dismiss the UCC, conversion, libel, unjust enrichment, and fraud claims, including all claims against Northern Trust. Leave to amend the complaints was granted.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionLanham ActDilutionUnjust EnrichmentConversionFraudCollateral EstoppelMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 1988

Wood v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.

A school bus driver, while on duty, witnessed a gruesome automobile accident involving children she knew. Subsequently, she developed symptoms of a psychological nature, diagnosed as posttraumatic stress disorder, rendering her unable to continue her work. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits, but the employer appealed. The court reversed the Board's decision, ruling that although the disability arose during employment, it was not the result of an 'accident' under the Workers’ Compensation Law because the claimant was not an active participant in the tragedy, but merely a witness.

posttraumatic stress disorderpsychological injuryworkers' compensationscope of employmentaccident definitioncausationbus driverwitnessing accidentmental injury
References
3
Case No. 525363
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2018

Matter of Park v. Corizon Health Inc.

Claimant Byoung Park, a pharmacist, was exposed to pepper spray at work in 2014, leading to various symptoms. She filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, and a WCLJ initially established the case for posttraumatic stress disorder and depression, later amending it to include exacerbation of preexisting fibromyalgia. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently reversed the decision regarding fibromyalgia, finding no causal relationship between the pepper spray exposure and the exacerbation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the claimant failed to establish a causal connection, noting conflicting medical testimony and the equivocal nature of some expert opinions.

Workers' CompensationFibromyalgiaPepper Spray ExposureCausal RelationshipMedical TestimonyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePreexisting ConditionWorkers' Compensation BoardExpert Witness
References
8
Case No. ADJ8725567
Regular
Feb 07, 2017

MARTHA ROMERO vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, INHOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES; Permissibly Self-Insured; YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Martha Romero's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that Romero sustained industrial cumulative trauma to her knees, shoulders, neck, trunk, ankles, and low back, but not to her head, arms, wrists, extremities, feet, psyche (hypertension, sleep disorder), or gastritis. This denial was based on the WCJ's report, which found Romero failed to meet her burden of proof regarding additional injuries and that her medical evidence was unsubstantial due to an inaccurate history and her failure to demonstrate due diligence in developing the record. The Board also noted the QME's opinion that Romero exaggerated her symptoms, supported by sub rosa video evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative Trauma InjuryIndustrial InjuryPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeQualified Medical EvaluatorSub Rosa VideoMagnifying SymptomsDue Diligence
References
3
Case No. Dkt. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Scheurer v. Berryhill

Plaintiff Kimberly Jean Scheurer seeks review of the denial of her Disability Insurance Benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. The case involves an appeal to the U.S. District Court regarding decisions made by Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) Andrew Henningfeld and Connor O'Brien. The court found that ALJ O'Brien erred by failing to properly weigh the opinions of Plaintiff's treating physicians, Drs. Fleeman and Rennert, regarding how her bipolar disorder symptoms would be exacerbated in a work environment. Additionally, the ALJ's interpretation of Dr. Finnity's consultative opinion was deemed too vague and speculative. Consequently, the court denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted Plaintiff's motion in part, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActBipolar DisorderMental ImpairmentTreating Physician RuleAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)Vocational Expert (VE)Medical EvidenceRemand
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 606 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