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
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. 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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Campbell

The defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted assault in the second degree after a nonjury trial, following an indictment for attempted rape and other charges. The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The defendant appealed, arguing that attempted assault under Penal Law § 120.05 (3) is a legal impossibility because the statute imposes criminal responsibility for an unintended injury, and one cannot attempt to bring about an unintended result. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that an attempt requires an intent to commit a specific crime and bring about the proscribed result. Since Penal Law § 120.05 (3) does not require intent to cause injury, but rather intent to prevent an officer from performing a lawful duty while causing injury, there can be no attempt to commit a crime whose core result (injury) is not intended. Consequently, the crime of attempted assault in the second degree under this subdivision was deemed a legal impossibility, and the Appellate Division's order was reversed, and the assault counts dismissed.

Criminal LawAttempted AssaultPenal LawSecond Degree AssaultIntent to InjureLegal ImpossibilityStrict LiabilityAppellate ReviewCriminal CulpabilityLawful Duty
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Nassau University Medical Center

This action concerns medical malpractice and wrongful death following a patient's suicide. The plaintiff, as the decedent's executor, appealed an order granting summary judgment to defendants Kathryn Zajac, a social worker, and Catholic Charities, her employer. The decedent, suffering from depression, expressed suicidal ideation to Zajac, who then consulted psychiatrist Kamil Jaghab. Jaghab determined a high suicide risk and advised hospital referral. The decedent was transported to Nassau University Medical Center and examined by psychiatrist Mukesh Prakash Sharoha, who, unaware of the specific suicide plan due to lack of communication from the Clinic, discharged him. The decedent committed suicide the next day. The appellate court found triable issues of fact regarding Zajac's duty to communicate with the hospital and follow up, reversing the lower court's grant of summary judgment.

medical malpracticewrongful deathsuicide preventiondepression treatmentsocial worker negligencepsychiatric assessmentvicarious liabilitysummary judgment motionprofessional standard of careproximate causation
References
3
Case No. ADJ11670075
Regular
Sep 15, 2022

JACK RIEGER vs. FOX SPORTS 1, LLC, DISCOVERY RE/TRAVELERS USF&G, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a WCJ's award finding applicant's severe injuries from a five-story fall compensable. The Board rejected defendant's claims of judicial bias and dismissed their petitions for disqualification. Defendant's arguments that the fall was not work-related, intentionally self-inflicted, or a suicide attempt failed due to insufficient proof and the liberal construction of workers' compensation laws favoring injured employees. The Board found the WCJ properly limited testimony of a defense expert, and that medical records sufficiently supported the findings of injury despite the absence of a QME report.

AOE/COELabor Code section 3600(a)(5)Labor Code section 3600(a)(6)Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaldisqualification of WCJbiasevidentiary decisionfinal ordersubstantial prejudice
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 971 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