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
Aug 28, 1997

Claim of Dockum v. Syroco, Inc.

The claimant, an electrician, was suspended pending discharge for allegedly failing to follow supervisor instructions. Shortly after this incident, he attempted suicide. He subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits based on injuries sustained from the suicide attempt. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found in favor of the claimant, but the Workers' Compensation Board later reversed, concluding that the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) because the discharge was a good-faith personnel decision, and the injury was solely mental. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that physical complications resulting from a suicide attempt are not compensable if the attempt itself is not compensable under § 2 (7), and that the employer's personnel decision was lawful and undertaken in good faith.

Workers' CompensationSuicide AttemptMental InjuryPersonnel DecisionGood FaithDischargeCausal RelationshipWorkers' Compensation Law § 2 (7)Physical ComplicationsAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibbons v. State

Marion Gibbons, an attorney, appealed his conviction for attempted theft, valued over $10,000, arguing insufficient evidence. The indictment alleged Gibbons attempted to unlawfully appropriate money from James L. Ballard by negotiating a settlement for an invalid worker's compensation claim for Donnie J. Dukes after Dukes' death. Despite engaging in unethical conduct, such as continuing negotiations and withholding information about Dukes' death from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and allegedly attempting to bribe an adjuster, the court found these actions did not amount to more than mere preparation. Crucially, the Compromise Settlement Agreement was never executed or submitted for approval by the Industrial Accident Board, which was a prerequisite for collecting funds. Therefore, the judgment of conviction was set aside, and Gibbons was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

Attempted TheftCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceWorker's Compensation ClaimLegal EthicsMere Preparation DoctrineIndustrial Accident BoardCompromise Settlement AgreementFraudAttorney Misconduct
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2014

Gallen v. County of Rockland

This case concerns an appeal by defendants Jay L. Lombard and Brain Behavior Center-Rockland from the denial of their motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice and wrongful death action. The plaintiff's decedent, after a suicide attempt, was discharged from Valley Hospital with a safety contract. The same day, he was seen by defendant Lombard, a neurologist, who performed a suicide assessment, prescribed medication, and concluded there was no immediate risk, but the decedent committed suicide a week later. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Lombard departed from good medical practice by failing to obtain prior records and conducting an inadequate suicide assessment.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathSuicide AssessmentNeurologist LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStandard of CareProximate CausePatient DischargePsychiatric Treatment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Altes v. Petrocelli Electric Co.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying death benefits to a claimant whose decedent committed suicide after a work-related injury. The Board concluded there was no causal relationship and that severe depression was insufficient for a suicide claim. The appellate court found the Board applied an incorrect legal standard, stating that depressive reactions can qualify as 'brain derangement' and a work-related injury only needs to be a 'contributing cause' to the ensuing suicide. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with the correct legal standard.

Suicide ClaimDeath BenefitsCausationDepressionMental InjuryWork-Related InjuryLegal Standard ErrorAppellate CourtRemittal
References
3
Case No. 13-07-00536-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2010

Diego Rodriguez-Escobar, M.D. v. Michael Allen Goss, Steven Lynn Goss, and Timothy Lee Goss, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Beverly Goss

This medical malpractice case involves an appeal against Dr. Diego Rodriguez-Escobar, M.D., concerning the suicide of Beverly Goss. Dr. Escobar, a psychiatrist at Rio Grande State Center, evaluated Beverly for involuntary commitment despite her history of suicide attempts and family concerns, but discharged her assuming family supervision which was not available. Beverly committed suicide five days post-discharge. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding Dr. Escobar's negligent evaluation and discharge a substantial cause of death. The court further ruled that official immunity did not apply, categorizing his actions as medical, not governmental, discretion.

Medical MalpracticeSuicidePsychiatric EvaluationInvoluntary CommitmentOfficial ImmunityCause in FactForeseeabilityMental Health LawDepressionStandard of Care
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Park v. Kovachevich

The plaintiff, on behalf of Park’s estate, sued Dr. Kovachevich and the Payne Whitney defendants for medical malpractice, alleging their prescriptions and treatment contributed to Park’s suicide. Park had a history of depression, anxiety, and multiple suicide attempts, receiving care from Dr. Kovachevich and being admitted to Payne Whitney. The defendants moved for summary judgment, supported by expert testimony asserting they met the standard of care and that Park's suicide was not causally linked to their actions or prescriptions. The plaintiff's expert countered, arguing improper diagnosis and treatment plan deficiencies. The Appellate Division, applying the professional medical judgment doctrine, found the plaintiff's expert opinions speculative and insufficient to establish a prima facie case of malpractice. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's denial of summary judgment, granting the defendants' motions.

Medical MalpracticeProfessional Medical Judgment DoctrineSuicideDepressionAnxietyPsychiatric CareDrug OverdoseStandard of CareCausationSummary Judgment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koenigsmark v. State

Claimant, with a history of schizophrenia and suicidal tendencies, escaped Elmira Psychiatric Center and attempted suicide. The dissent argues that the Court of Claims erred in dismissing the claim, asserting that Elmira was negligent. The negligence stemmed from systemic failures in patient record-keeping, communication of doctor's orders, reporting changes in patient behavior, and facility security. These omissions, according to the dissent, constituted common-law negligence, not mere errors in medical judgment, warranting a reversal of the lower court's dismissal and remittal for a trial on damages.

negligencepsychiatric caresuicide attempthospital liabilitypatient supervisionmedical malpracticemental health facilityrecord keeping failurecommunication breakdownsecurity inadequacy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez-Escobar v. Goss

This is an appeal in a medical malpractice case where Dr. Diego Rodriguez-Escobar appeals a judgment awarding damages to the Goss family for the death of Beverly Goss. Beverly Goss died by suicide shortly after Dr. Escobar, a psychiatrist at Rio Grande State Center, discharged her despite prior suicide attempts, family concerns, and other doctors' recommendations for continued hospitalization. The court addresses Dr. Escobar's arguments regarding the legal and factual insufficiency of causation and his entitlement to official immunity. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of causation and rejecting the official immunity defense.

Medical MalpracticeSuicidePsychiatryOfficial ImmunityCausationNegligenceMental IllnessInvoluntary CommitmentStandard of CareDischarge
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stolarski v. Family Services of Westchester, Inc.

Plaintiff Arlene Stolarski appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which dismissed her cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering in a wrongful death action. The decedent, after an apparent suicide attempt and subsequent consultations with Family Services of Westchester, Inc., died by suicide shortly after. Plaintiff alleged negligence by Family Services in treating the decedent's depression, causing conscious pain and suffering between October 19, 2005, and October 28, 2005. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, reasoning that such damages couldn't be recovered in a wrongful death action and that the depression was pre-existing. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a cause of action for personal injuries, including conscious pain and suffering due to professional malpractice, survives the decedent's death and may be recovered by her estate, and that pre-existing conditions do not preclude proving exacerbation by alleged negligent treatment.

Wrongful DeathConscious Pain and SufferingProfessional MalpracticeNegligenceSuicideMental Health TreatmentSurvival StatuteAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissPre-existing Condition
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2009

People v. Andrus

Defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child. He argued his Miranda rights were violated, but the court found a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver. The court also rejected his claim that a social worker acted as a law enforcement agent without issuing Miranda warnings, noting the interview's timing and continuous custody. Furthermore, police deception regarding a polygraph did not coerce his statement or deny due process. His challenge to his Alford plea was unpreserved, and the sentence was deemed appropriate.

Miranda rightsWaiver of rightsRight to counselPolice interrogationSocial worker interviewLaw enforcement agencyVoluntariness of confessionPolice deceptionPolygraph examinationDue process
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,333 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