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

Claim of Estrada v. Peepels Mechanical Corp.

The claimant's case was established for occupational disease resulting in bilateral hearing loss. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined the date of disablement and, after initial discharge, reinstated the State Insurance Fund (Fund) to produce an apportionment report between occupational disease and traumatic hearing loss. The Fund appealed this decision. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently found the Fund was not the proper party as it did not cover the employer on the date of disablement and reversed the order for the apportionment report. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier then appealed the Board's decision. The higher court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that a claim for traumatic hearing loss was never formally made or pending before the Board.

Occupational DiseaseBilateral Hearing LossApportionmentDate of DisablementWorkers' Compensation CarrierState Insurance FundBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewTraumatic Hearing LossWCLJ Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1982

Claim of Burroughs v. Goshen Public School

Claimant, an industrial arts teacher, sustained a compensable injury to his left eye on June 22, 1976, resulting in a traumatic cataract and industrial blindness. A 100% schedule award for loss of use of the left eye was initially granted but later rescinded by the Workers' Compensation Board after the carrier appealed, arguing the award was premature as vision might improve with surgery. The case was restored to the Trial Calendar, and an administrative law judge reinstated the award after hearing testimony. The Board unanimously affirmed, finding the claimant's refusal to undergo eye surgery reasonable due to potential problems. The employer and carrier appealed this affirmance, contending the refusal was unreasonable as a matter of law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board's determination on the reasonableness of refusal to undergo surgery is a factual finding supported by substantial evidence and cannot be disturbed.

Workers' Compensation BoardIndustrial InjuryLeft Eye InjuryTraumatic CataractIndustrial BlindnessSchedule AwardSurgery RefusalReasonableness of RefusalSubstantial EvidenceFactual Finding
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Guess v. Finger Lakes Ambulance

The claimant, a paramedic, suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after responding to a fatal industrial accident where a victim conversed with her before succumbing to horrific injuries. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury accidental, the Workers' Compensation Board later disallowed the claim, asserting that the stress was not greater than what a paramedic typically experiences. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing evidence that paramedics are routinely exposed to traumatic events. This ruling emphasizes that for a mental injury from psychic trauma to be compensable, the stress must exceed that of a similarly situated worker's normal work environment.

Post-Traumatic Stress DisorderParamedicAccidental InjuryPsychic TraumaWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStress-Related InjuryNormal Work EnvironmentTraumatic Event ExposureMental Injury CompensabilityAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ornstein v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case addresses the viability of claims for emotional and psychological injury, specifically AIDS phobia and post-traumatic stress disorder, following an HIV exposure. The plaintiff, a nurse, was accidentally pricked by a contaminated needle and subsequently developed severe emotional distress. The Supreme Court had allowed her claims for post-traumatic stress disorder to extend beyond the established six-month limitation for AIDS phobia. However, this appellate court reversed that decision, ruling that all related emotional damages must adhere to the six-month period, based on the scientific consensus regarding the likelihood of HIV infection detection.

AIDS PhobiaHIV ExposureEmotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSix-Month Limitation RuleMedical ConsensusObjective StandardNeedle Stick InjuryWorkers' Compensation Psychiatrist
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2006

Sanchez v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a settlement pertaining to an infant plaintiff's emotional injuries. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this denial. Plaintiffs, including the infant's guardian, claimed they only discovered the true extent of the infant's emotional injuries, including post-traumatic stress syndrome, in the summer of 2005 following an examination by a social worker. However, the court found that these psychological injuries were known from the case's inception in 2001 and were appropriately considered when the settlement was agreed upon in December 2004. Evidence, including a 2001 psychiatric evaluation, confirmed the infant's diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder prior to the settlement agreement.

Settlement DisputeInfant's RightsPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderVacating SettlementCompromise OrderPsychological HarmSearch Warrant ExecutionAppellate AffirmationParental GuardianJudicial Discretion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transportation Insurance Co. v. Maksyn

Joe J. Maksyn, an advertising service manager, filed a claim for workmen's compensation benefits due to an occupational disease—an anxiety depression caused by work pressures, leading to physical symptoms. The Industrial Accident Board granted an award, which Transportation Insurance Company challenged. A jury found that Maksyn suffered an occupational disease from repetitious physical traumatic activities arising from employment, causing permanent total incapacity starting September 4, 1974. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that mental traumatic activities, especially when combined with physical aspects, can be compensable under the amended Workmen's Compensation Act, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings regarding the onset and nature of the disability.

Occupational diseaseAnxiety depressionRepetitious physical traumatic activitiesMental traumaPhysical traumaWorkmen's Compensation ActTotal incapacityPermanent disabilityHypertensionMedical evaluation
References
11
Case No. W2001-00179-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2001

Michael Cheslock v. Bd. of Admin., etc .

Michael Cheslock, a Memphis Police Lieutenant, sought a line of duty disability pension for job-related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after two specific traumatic incidents. The Pension Board denied his request, citing that his condition did not meet the 'accident at some definite time and place' requirement of the Memphis Code of Ordinances. This decision was upheld by the Chancery Court of Shelby County. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding material evidence supported the Pension Board's determination. The appellate court concluded that the incidents, while extreme, could be considered within the expected scope of a Tactical Unit officer's duties, and that the evidence was ambiguous regarding whether the PTSD resulted from a specific accident or a gradual build-up of stress.

PTSDDisability PensionWorkers' CompensationMental InjuryLine of DutyMemphis CodeWrit of CertiorariPolice OfficerJob-related StressAccident Definition
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04075
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Traverso v. DiNapoli

Petitioner Manuel Traverso Jr., a former State Police investigator, sought accidental disability retirement benefits due to post-traumatic stress disorder, manic depression, and anxiety stemming from his dangerous undercover narcotics work. His duties involved interacting with drug cartels and informants, exposing him to traumatic events. After a panic attack in 2015, he was diagnosed and deemed unable to work, leading to his application for benefits. The New York State and Local Retirement System and subsequently the Comptroller denied his application, ruling that his disability was not the result of an 'accident' as defined by Retirement and Social Security Law § 363, but rather from the inherent risks of his job. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding substantial evidence that the stress causing his mental injuries was an ordinary part of his duties. Consequently, the court dismissed his petition, affirming that his injuries were not accidental.

Accidental Disability Retirement BenefitsPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderUndercover Narcotics InvestigatorState PoliceRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR Article 78 ProceedingComptroller's DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceOrdinary Course of Job DutiesMental Injuries
References
10
Case No. 02-17-00276-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2018

William Blevins v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

William Blevins appealed an unfavorable jury verdict in his declaratory-judgment action against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for underinsured-motorist benefits, after settling with the two drivers involved in his accident. Blevins's primary claim was for a permanent traumatic brain injury resulting in diminished cognitive abilities, seeking at least $300,000 in damages. The jury, however, awarded zero damages for past and future physical pain, mental anguish, disfigurement, and physical impairment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury's findings of zero damages were not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, particularly given the strong impeachment of Blevins's expert and the largely subjective nature of the alleged traumatic brain injury. The court also found no abuse of discretion in quashing a trial subpoena for a State Farm representative or in the jury instructions.

Underinsured Motorist BenefitsJury Verdict AppealZero Damages AwardEvidentiary SufficiencyTraumatic Brain Injury ClaimCognitive DeficitsExpert Witness ImpeachmentNon-economic DamagesPhysical Pain and Mental AnguishDisfigurement and Impairment
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Schevenell Ready Mix, Inc.

Thomas Johnson appealed the dismissal of his worker's compensation claim for permanent disability benefits due to traumatic neurosis from an on-the-job accident in 1978. He sustained a scalping injury and other minor injuries when his "pay-loader" went over a cliff. While employer-selected physicians found no neurological disability, appellant's psychiatrist, Dr. Nancy H. Duckworth, diagnosed permanent disability from traumatic neurosis based on subjective complaints. The trial judge rejected Dr. Duckworth's testimony, citing an incorrect legal principle that medical evidence must have a basis other than subjective complaints. The Supreme Court clarified that T.C.A. § 24-718 allows medical opinions based on subjective findings from qualified experts to establish disability if found credible. The Court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court for a new evaluation of witness testimony, including Dr. Duckworth's, and the introduction of further evidence regarding appellant's psychiatric treatment.

Disability BenefitsTraumatic NeurosisMedical EvidenceSubjective FindingsCredibility of WitnessRemandAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPsychiatric EvaluationOn-the-job Injury
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 193 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