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. 2021 NY Slip Op 04626 [197 AD3d 518]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2021

D. S. v. Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources, P.C.

This case involves an appeal by the Port Jefferson School District from an order denying its motion to dismiss a personal injury complaint. The infant plaintiff, a special education student, was allegedly injured by a therapist, Vito Silecchia, during a behavioral therapy session. The plaintiffs sued the School District, among others, alleging Silecchia was an employee or agent. The District contended Silecchia was an independent contractor retained through Positive Behavior Support Consulting and Psychological Resources, P.C. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the dismissal motion, stating that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action and that documentary evidence did not conclusively establish an independent contractor relationship, given provisions in the agreement suggesting the District maintained some control over the services.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySchool District LiabilitySpecial EducationTherapist NegligenceCPLR 3211 (a) (1)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2009

In re the Claim of Messado

The claimant, a clerical worker, was discharged from a city agency for misconduct after confronting a coworker in a threatening manner and using profanity, despite previous warnings for similar behavior. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his claim for unemployment insurance benefits. On appeal, the decision was affirmed, with the court finding substantial evidence to support the Board's finding of disqualifying misconduct. The court noted that threatening behavior toward a coworker constitutes misconduct and upheld the Board's resolution of credibility issues presented by conflicting testimonies.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductTermination of EmploymentThreatening BehaviorProfanityCredibility IssueCoworker DisputeWorkplace ConductPrior WarningsAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 1999

In re the Claim of Petrocelli

The claimant was dismissed from her bookkeeper position after threatening a co-worker, a behavior she had been reprimanded for earlier. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that her employment was terminated due to misconduct, disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion. It noted that continuous threatening or harassing behavior despite employer warnings constitutes disqualifying misconduct. The court also clarified that the claimant's differing account of events merely created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve, which it was entitled to do.

Unemployment benefitsMisconductWorkplace threatsHarassmentEmployee dischargeCredibility issueAdministrative appealAppellate DivisionUnemployment Insurance LawEmployer warnings
References
5
Case No. 2017-08-0751; State File No. 15611-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2019

Holdway, Terri v. Lakeside Behavioral Health Systems

This case concerns Terri Holdway, a nurse seeking workers' compensation benefits for a mental injury allegedly stemming from a patient assault in February 2016 at Lakeside Behavioral Health Systems. Ms. Holdway claimed PTSD, depression, and anxiety, but medical records indicated pre-existing mental health issues. The court heard conflicting expert testimonies from Dr. Melvin Goldin, who diagnosed PTSD, and Dr. Joel A. Reisman, who refuted the PTSD diagnosis, citing Ms. Holdway's return to work and lack of avoidance behavior. The court sided with Dr. Reisman, finding that Ms. Holdway did not prove her mental injury arose primarily from her employment. Consequently, the claim for mental injury benefits was denied, though ongoing medical benefits for her facial injury were awarded.

Mental Injury ClaimPTSD DenialWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNurse InjuryPatient AssaultPre-existing ConditionsExpert Medical TestimonyDSM 5 CriteriaCausation DisputeEmployment Stress
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 1997

In re the Claim of Madden

Claimant was suspended from her employment as a typist due to disruptive, insubordinate, and threatening behavior, following prior warnings. An arbitration hearing confirmed the suspension was warranted based on threats made to co-workers and a history of disruptive conduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board adopted these findings, ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that threats and disruptive behavior in the workplace constitute misconduct and that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Claimant's remaining contentions were reviewed and found without merit.

unemployment insurancemisconductsuspensiondisruptive behaviorinsubordinationthreatsarbitrationappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceBoard decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1982

In re the Claim of Caryl

The claimant was terminated for misconduct following a company awards dinner. During the event, he admittedly consumed a significant amount of alcohol, engaged in disruptive behavior including throwing objects, harassing waitresses, and making obscene gestures and insulting comments to speakers. He also attempted to assault a superior and threatened another, leading to his arrest. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially granted benefits, deeming the misconduct not 'in connection with' his employment. However, the court reversed this, ruling that the employer-sponsored event was indeed connected to employment, and employees must uphold behavioral standards even off-duty, thus disqualifying the claimant from benefits.

misconductunemployment insuranceemployee terminationcompany eventoff-duty conductintoxicationworkplace behaviorappeal boardemployer responsibilityemployee obligations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Senator NN.

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order that adjudicated respondent Donna NN.'s child neglected. The petitioner removed the child due to respondent's agitated behavior and mental state, subsequently filing a neglect petition. Family Court found neglect, citing respondent's failure to provide adequate supervision and inability to control herself, endangering the child. The child was placed in the father's custody, and respondent's contact was limited. On appeal, respondent argued the findings were insufficient to establish neglect. The appellate court affirmed, granting deference to Family Court's factual findings. Evidence included respondent's incoherent and threatening phone calls to health officials, her boisterous behavior during a home interview, and a diagnosis of bipolar and mixed personality disorders, demonstrating her inability to care for the child.

Child NeglectParental SupervisionMental Health EvaluationBipolar DisorderPersonality DisorderFamily Court Act Article 10Child Protective ServicesAppellate AffirmationCustody OrderImminent Danger
References
6
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07198 [144 AD3d 691]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2016

Matter of Sellers v. Stanford

Khaliyq Sellers, convicted of first-degree assault, had his parole revoked by the New York State Board of Parole after violating release conditions at a drug treatment center and during detention at Rikers Island. The violations included making verbal threats to "blow up the place" and threatening to kill everyone at Rikers Island, among other non-compliant behaviors. Sellers initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the revocation on grounds of untimeliness and due process violations, which was transferred to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division, Second Department, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits, concluding that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The court specifically found that verbal threats constituted prohibited behavior under parole rule 8, without requiring physical conduct, and that the final parole revocation hearing was timely held.

Parole RevocationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingSubstantial Evidence ReviewDue Process RightsParole ViolationsVerbal ThreatsTimeliness of HearingAppellate DivisionAssault ConvictionCorrectional Facility Incident
References
21
Case No. 2018-03-0615
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2019

Creasman, Matthew v. USF Holland, Inc.

Matthew Ryan Creasman filed a claim seeking medical and temporary disability benefits for a mental injury he alleged arose from two incidents with a co-worker at USF Holland, Inc. The incidents occurred in December 2017 and April 2018, where Creasman claimed his co-worker, James Gasche, threatened him, leading to PTSD, anxiety, and major depression. However, investigations by the employer and police, along with witness accounts, did not substantiate Creasman's claims of aggressive or threatening behavior. Medical opinions were conflicting, with Creasman's doctors relying on subjective complaints, while employer-requested examiners conducted objective testing, concluding Creasman's claims were not credible and diagnosing malingering. The Court found Creasman failed to prove an identifiable stressful work-related event or that the event was extraordinary, and also failed to show a medical certainty that employment contributed more than fifty percent to his condition. Consequently, his claim for benefits was denied.

Mental Injury ClaimWorkplace DisputeEmotional DistressPTSDAnxietyDepressionMalingeringCausation DisputeMedical Opinion ConflictObjective Testing
References
4
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
Showing 1-10 of 505 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