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. 2023 NY Slip Op 06416 [222 AD3d 1132]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Andino v. Structural Preserv. Sys.

Marvin Andino appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied his claim for benefits due to untimely written notice of injury. Andino allegedly sustained injuries in July 2019 but did not provide written notice to his employer until March 2021, long after initial medical treatment and shoulder surgery in December 2020. The Board found his reasons for delay insufficient, despite his claims of fearing job loss and not initially thinking the injury was serious. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board rationally found no sufficient reason for the untimely notice and did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the claim.

Workers' CompensationTimely NoticeNotice of InjuryExcused FailureEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceRotator Cuff TearShoulder InjurySurgical InterventionAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richard H. v. Consilvio

Petitioner Richard H., diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, has a history of involuntary commitments and bank robberies. This appeal concerns the Commissioner of Mental Health's application for a retention order in a secure psychiatric facility. A lower court initially ordered his transfer to a nonsecure facility, crediting his testimony and an advisory jury opinion that he was not dangerous. The Appellate Division, upon review, found that the Commissioner had established Richard H. suffers from a "dangerous mental disorder." The court emphasized his history of dangerous behavior, noncompliance with medication, escapes from nonsecure facilities, and delusional beliefs. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order was modified, and Richard H. was ordered to be retained in a secure facility.

Paranoid SchizophreniaInvoluntary CommitmentInsanity AcquitteeDangerous Mental DisorderRetention OrderMental Hygiene LawCriminal Procedure LawMedication NoncomplianceBank RobberyDelusional Beliefs
References
14
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05656 [174 AD3d 704]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2019

Matter of Linda H.A. (Belluci)

In this case, Linda H.A. appealed a Supreme Court judgment that appointed an independent guardian for her person and property under Mental Hygiene Law article 81. The proceeding was initiated by the Executive Director of North Shore University Hospital, alleging Linda H.A. was an incapacitated person requiring a guardian. Following a hearing, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, finding clear and convincing evidence of Linda H.A.'s incapacity. The court based its decision on testimony revealing her inability to provide for personal needs and property management, delusional beliefs, a history of eviction, and refusal of medical and housing assistance.

GuardianshipIncapacitationMental Hygiene Law Article 81Appellate ReviewPersonal Needs ManagementProperty ManagementClear and Convincing EvidenceDelusional BeliefsEviction HistoryRefusal of Care
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamco Building Maintenance Corp. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This CPLR article 78 proceeding concerns a petition to annul a decision by the Division of Human Rights. The Division had previously found that the petitioner discriminated against its employee, Sierra, through reduced work hours, denial of uniforms, and retaliatory termination following an altercation. However, prior hearings by the New York State Department of Labor and Sierra's union had rejected her claims of sexual harassment and retaliation as incredible. Furthermore, a court-appointed psychiatrist diagnosed Sierra with paranoid personality disorder and delusional psychosis regarding her beliefs. The court ultimately concluded that the Division's Commissioner's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and therefore annulled and vacated the decision, denying the administrative complaint and dismissing the proceeding.

Human RightsDiscriminationRetaliationSexual HarassmentAnnulmentAdministrative LawCredibilityParanoid Personality DisorderDelusional PsychosisArticle 78 Proceeding
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Rimler

Harriet Richman, a 37-year-old morbidly obese patient, was admitted to New York Hospital Center of Queens in July 1994. The hospital initiated an Article 81 Mental Hygiene Law proceeding to appoint a guardian due to her inability to manage personal needs and property. Richman, weighing between 400-500 pounds, refused to cooperate with discharge planning, accumulated uncashed Social Security checks, and faced eviction due to significant rent arrears. Despite her verbal competence, Dr. Lubin diagnosed her with a thinking disorder of borderline personality, leading to self-destructive and self-confounding behavior. The court found clear and convincing evidence of incapacity and appointed Jasmine Thomas and TOUCH, Inc. as coguardians for her personal needs and property management, waiving the bond requirement.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonMental Hygiene LawObesitySocial SecurityRent ArrearsDischarge PlanningBorderline PersonalityFunctional LimitationsProperty Management
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kevin M. v. South Beach Psychiatric Center

Kevin M. was arrested for stalking Grammy-winning singer Robyn Fenty (Rihanna) after sending her hundreds of delusional letters and frequently appearing near her Manhattan apartment. Found unfit to stand trial, he was civilly committed to South Beach Psychiatric Center (SBPC). During a subsequent hearing, medical experts testified to his severe psychotic disorder, continuous delusions, and assessment as a danger to himself and others. The court denied Kevin M.'s application for release, finding existing Mental Hygiene Law inadequate to protect Ms. Fenty. Exercising its general equity jurisdiction, the court issued a permanent injunction and an order of protection, prohibiting Kevin M. from any contact with Ms. Fenty or her properties, and allowing for immediate arrest if violated, addressing perceived gaps in New York law concerning dangerously mentally ill individuals with specific targets.

StalkingMental IllnessInvoluntary CommitmentOrder of ProtectionPermanent InjunctionPsychotic DisorderPublic SafetyCriminal Procedure LawMental Hygiene LawEquity Jurisdiction
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Tyler S.

The case involves a petition filed on October 12, 2001, alleging that the respondent mother neglected her seven-year-old child, Tyler. The allegations include failure to address Tyler's ADHD and special education needs, inadequate shelter due to unpaid bills, marijuana use, and an untreated mental illness described as paranoid and delusional with a possible personality disorder. The petitioner, Administration for Children's Services (ACS), seeks to compel a mental health evaluation of the mother. The court examines the applicability of Family Court Act and Civil Practice Law and Rules regarding such compulsory evaluations, distinguishing from previous case law. The court concludes that it has the authority to order a pre-fact-finding mental health evaluation, finding it material and necessary given the respondent's history of non-compliance with voluntary treatment and the conflicting previous diagnoses. The court orders the respondent to submit to an evaluation by a psychiatrist.

Child NeglectMental Health EvaluationParental Mental IllnessADHDFamily Court ActCPLR Article 31Testimonial EvidenceNontestimonial EvidenceForensic ExaminationDiscovery Procedures
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Perra

Petitioner Scott Perra, on behalf of Faxton-St. Luke’s Healthcare, sought involuntary retention of Theresa Doe for mental health treatment and administration of Risperdal over her objection under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33. Respondent, a 23-year-old pregnant female diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, refused medication due to pregnancy concerns. Physicians, including Dr. Bahram Omidian and Dr. B.E. Fard, assessed respondent as delusional, disorganized, and a danger to herself and her fetus without treatment. The court found that the petitioner met the burden for involuntary retention, citing respondent's impaired judgment and inability to make rational decisions regarding her health and the fetus. However, the court denied the application to forcibly administer Risperdal, noting the PDR's inconclusive information on fetal effects and upholding principles of autonomy, while permitting reapplication if respondent's condition decompensates. The court also judicially noticed the harmful effects of maternal smoking on a fetus and mandated an aggressive smoking cessation program for the respondent.

Involuntary CommitmentMental Hygiene LawParanoid SchizophreniaForced MedicationRisperdalPregnant PatientFetal HealthPatient AutonomyParens PatriaeInformed Consent
References
8
Showing 1-8 of 8 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