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 Burke v. New York City Transit Authority

A subway train operator sought workers' compensation benefits for psychological injuries, alleging harassment by supervisors. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which determined the claimant failed to demonstrate that the stress was greater than that of similarly situated workers. The claimant appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and deferring to the Board’s credibility determinations regarding witness testimonies from both the claimant and supervisors involved in the monitoring incident.

psychological injurywork-related stresssupervisory harassmentsubway operatorworkers' compensation claimAppellate Divisionsubstantial evidencecredibility determinationnormal work environment standardmental injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ2972614 (VNO 0551694) ADJ3199572 (VNO 0558860)
Regular
Jan 31, 2012

ALI POURFARZAD vs. PALMIRA ASSOCIATES, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant claiming industrial injuries to his spine, psychological system, and central nervous system (sleep disorder) from two separate dates of employment. The administrative law judge initially found injury to the psychological and central nervous systems but required further development of the record for permanent disability and apportionment. The Appeals Board determined that neither party presented substantial evidence regarding the causation and permanency of the claimed psychological and central nervous system injuries. Consequently, these issues are deferred, and the record will be developed further, potentially through an Agreed Medical Evaluator or a court-appointed physician.

Petition for ReconsiderationPartial Joint Findings of FactPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Substantial EvidenceDevelop the RecordAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Regular PhysicianLabor Code Section 5701CausationPsychological Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cook-Schoonover v. Corning Hospital

Claimant, an employee at Corning Hospital, suffered psychological injuries due to a verbally harassing work environment from coworkers Lori Glass and Michelle Lewis, leading to hospitalizations and a diagnosis of anxiety attacks, panic disorder, and depression. She filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were initially dismissed by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but later found compensable by the Workers’ Compensation Board, supported by medical reports from Frank Bourke, Michael Cilip, and Albert Wolkoff. The employer and carrier appealed, alleging due process violations, but the court found no record of these requests. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence from claimant's testimony and medical reports, and emphasized that psychic injury can result from extended emotional stress and pre-existing vulnerability does not preclude benefits.

work-related stresspsychological injuryhostile work environmentverbal harassmentpanic disorderdepressionworkers' compensation benefitsmedical evidencewitness credibilitydue process
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2001

Claim of Oberson v. Bureau of Ferry Aviation & Transportation

The claimant was terminated from his employment as a marine oiler after a physical altercation with his supervisor in January 1993. He sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming a compensable psychological injury from the altercation. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim due to the claimant's failure to timely notify the employer of his injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. Although the employer had actual knowledge of the altercation and termination, there was no indication they had actual knowledge of a psychological injury stemming from the altercation until 1999, approximately six years later. The Board's determination that the employer did not have timely notice and was prejudiced by the delay was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation NoticePsychological Injury ClaimTimeliness of NoticeEmployer PrejudiceActual KnowledgeWorkplace AltercationEmployment TerminationWorkers' Compensation Board AffirmationAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. ADJ72 02827
Regular
Apr 14, 2016

Luz Castro vs. Sharp Health Care, ACE American Insurance Company, ESIS, INC.

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for industrial injuries to her neck, back, and psyche. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because neither the applicant's nor the defendant's medical evidence sufficiently supported findings on psychological injury or permanent disability. Due to the unreliability of the orthopedic medical opinions and the psychologist's reliance on them, the Board deferred the issues of permanent disability and injury to the psyche. The matter is returned for further proceedings, including selecting a new orthopedic evaluator, before determining these deferred issues and attorney's fees.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalFindings and AwardVacating SubmissionNew and Further DisabilityIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityPsycheApportionment
References
0
Case No. 2015-455 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

This case involves Metro Psychological Services, P.C., as an assignee, seeking first-party no-fault benefits from Travelers Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the assignor's injuries occurred during employment, which would make workers' compensation benefits applicable. The Civil Court denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Term reversed this order, concluding there was an unresolved issue as to whether the plaintiff's assignor was acting in the course of employment at the time of the accident. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Civil Court to be held in abeyance, pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law, underscoring the Board's primary jurisdiction in such matters.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeMedical ProviderAssigneeCourse of Employment
References
9
Case No. ADJ6968776
Regular
Apr 29, 2013

MARTHA IBARRA vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, INC.

This case involves Martha Ibarra's cumulative trauma injury claim against 99 Cents Only Stores. The defendant sought to bar the claim under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that while the specific condition of prior medical records for the cumulative trauma injury was not met, the injury date being subsequent to notice of termination, as defined by Labor Code section 5412, satisfied the exception under section 3600(a)(10)(D). The Board amended the Findings of Fact to reflect this, affirmed the finding of injury to the upper extremities and spine, and returned the case for further proceedings, while deferring the issue of psychological injury.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code section 3208.3(e)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactCumulative Trauma InjuryUpper ExtremitiesSpinePsycheAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Whole Person Impairment (WPI)
References
0
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. ADJ9339421 ADJ9275614 ADJ9339395
Regular
Jan 05, 2018

ROBERT LEITHISER vs. MICROSOFT, GALLAGHER BASSETT RANCHO CUCAMONGA

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of a decision denying an applicant's psychological injury claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and affirmed the original finding that the applicant did not sustain an industrial psyche injury. Consequently, the lien claimant is not entitled to recover costs for psychological medical treatment. However, the WCAB deferred the issue of whether the lien claimant can recover for medical-legal costs, returning it to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and Orderindustrial injurypsychepsychological treatmentmedical-legal costscontested claimpreponderance of the evidencemedical-legal expenses
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 13,455 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