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

Scodary v. Serritella

Claimant established a work-related neck and left arm injury, receiving workers’ compensation benefits for a brief period in December 2003. Her employment was terminated in January 2004, leading to new issues regarding further causally related disability, consequential depression, and withdrawal from the labor market. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim for consequential depression, asserting that her psychologist's treatment lacked the required referral from an authorized physician under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-m (2) (a). The appellate court ruled this exclusion of evidence was an error, stating the statute does not create an evidentiary barrier to a psychologist's testimony and records, even without a physician referral. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the exclusion of evidence for consequential depression, and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsConsequential DepressionPsychologist TestimonyReferral RequirementEvidentiary StandardsCausally Related DisabilityLoss of EarningsAppellate ReviewRemittalMedical Evidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2001

Claim of Multari v. Keenan Oil Co.

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from July 25, 2001, which found that a section 32 waiver agreement included his major depression condition. The claimant had settled two compensation cases from 1972 and 1994 for $93,000, closing both. He later argued the agreement failed to cover his major depression, established in 1996 in conjunction with the 1994 accident. The Board affirmed its jurisdiction and rejected the claimant's contention that the major depression was excluded. The appellate court agreed the Board had jurisdiction to determine if a condition was included in a section 32 agreement. On the merits, the court found the Board correctly concluded the major depression condition was subsumed in the settlement, citing the agreement's unequivocal terms and the claimant's hearing testimony. The agreement stated cases could not be reopened "for any purpose whatsoever" and permanently discontinued weekly benefits that included compensation for depression.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementMajor DepressionPsychiatric ConditionJurisdictionSection 32 AgreementAppealBoard ReviewScope of Agreement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Velez v. Modern Linens & Towels

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1998, later including major depression, and was deemed to have a permanent partial disability. A 2003 settlement agreement for a $50,000 lump sum under Workers' Compensation Law § 32, with counsel fees, was approved by the Workers’ Compensation Board in February 2004. Claimant subsequently sought to reopen the case, requesting a late payment penalty and challenging the agreement for excluding his depressive disorder. The Board denied both requests, determining no late penalty was due as the agreement was not properly "submitted" per former regulations, and the agreement precluded further compensation for the psychological injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that without a hearing, the agreement was not 'submitted' to trigger late penalties, and upholding the Board's discretionary approval. The court also rejected the contention to nullify the agreement regarding depression, citing a prior finding that the causal relationship between employment and depression had terminated and benefits were focused on the back injury.

Workers' Compensation Law § 32Settlement AgreementLate Payment PenaltyPermanent Partial DisabilityMajor DepressionBoard ApprovalDiscretionary AuthorityWorkers' Compensation BoardLump Sum SettlementCounsel Fees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2009

Claim of Smith v. Cornell University

Decedent, a painter, suffered work-related injuries in 2000 and 2001, leading to a workers’ compensation claim established for consequential depression. In 2007, he committed suicide. His wife, the claimant, sought death benefits, arguing the suicide stemmed from his work injuries, chronic pain, and depression. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the claim, finding substantial medical evidence from the treating psychiatrist and an independent medical examiner supported a causal link between the 2001 accident, subsequent depression, and suicide. The Board also concluded that a compensable accident only needs to be a contributing cause to a mental injury, thus affirming the causal relationship despite other potential factors.

SuicideDepressionWork-related injuryCausationDeath benefitsWorkers' Compensation LawChronic painMental healthMedical evidenceAppellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elida Shkreli v. Initial Contract Services

The claimant suffered an electrical shock at work in August 2002, resulting in neck and back injuries that led to permanent partial disability. She subsequently developed depression, claiming it was a consequential psychiatric disability related to her workplace accident. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits for this psychiatric condition, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, crediting the carrier's psychiatrist over the claimant's treating psychiatrist regarding causation. This court, however, reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the carrier's psychiatrist's opinion lacked a rational basis and was speculative, as it failed to adequately account for the claimant's significant physical injuries and the temporal proximity of her depression to the accident. The court found the treating psychiatrist's opinion, linking the depression to the accident, was effectively uncontroverted. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationPsychiatric InjuryDepressionCausationExpert Medical TestimonyIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionReversal
References
12
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

In re the Claim of Ottomanelli v. Ottomanelli

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found a causal relationship between a claimant's work as a butcher and his psychiatric disability (acute anxiety and depression). The employer did not dispute the claimant's suffering, only whether the work pressure was the cause. The Board, reversing a referee's "no causal relationship" finding, relied on the testimony of Dr. Kiev and the claimant. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that depressive reactions triggered by work can constitute an industrial accident and that such an accident can arise from prolonged unusual circumstances. The court emphasized that the causal relationship is a question of fact for the Board, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationPsychiatric DisabilityCausal RelationshipIndustrial AccidentJob PressureDepressive ReactionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBoard DecisionMedical Testimony
References
4
Case No. ADJ2301634 (RDG 0079575), ADJ3681119 (RDG 0085051), ADJ6607629
Regular
May 26, 2009

TODD BURNS vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB denied the petition, upholding a prior award of medical treatment, including antidepressant medication, for a worker with industrial low back injuries. The defendant argued that the depression was not a compensable psychiatric injury under Labor Code section 3208.3. However, the WCAB found that the defendant's failure to conduct mandatory utilization review (UR) as required by law barred them from disputing the need for treatment. The Board affirmed that the worker is entitled to treatment, including antidepressants, for depression arising as a consequence of the established industrial low back injuries.

Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow Back InjuryDepressionAntidepressant MedicationCompensable ConsequenceLabor Code Section 3208.3Equitable EstoppelUtilization Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Durrant v. Chemical/Chase Bank/Manhattan Bank, N.A.

The plaintiff, an employee of The Chase Manhattan Bank, was terminated on January 29, 1993, following an injury and subsequent hospitalization for depression. The complaint alleged a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming termination due to disability. Chase moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was not a 'qualified individual with a disability' and did not request reasonable accommodation. The court assumed for the motion that the plaintiff was substantially limited by depression and that her condition might have been aggravated by the termination. The court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding that Chase failed to establish the absence of a genuine issue regarding whether the plaintiff could have returned to work with a reasonable accommodation of additional leave.

Americans With Disabilities ActADAEmployment TerminationDisability DiscriminationDepressionMental HealthReasonable AccommodationSummary Judgment MotionLeave of AbsenceQualified Individual
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 228 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