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

Mott v. Central New York Psychiatric Center

The claimant, a guard at a state-run psychiatric center, suffered a work-related injury and received workers’ compensation benefits. During his disability, he used personal leave time for which he received full wages. The employer sought reimbursement for these advance payments, but the Workers’ Compensation Board denied reimbursement for the personal leave portion. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, differentiating personal leave from sick leave by noting that personal leave could not be accrued or converted, thus not conferring a permanent benefit to the employer or a detriment to the claimant. The court concluded that denying reimbursement would result in the claimant receiving both full wages and compensation for the same period, a disfavored outcome, and therefore, reimbursement should be granted.

ReimbursementAdvance PaymentsPersonal LeaveSick LeaveWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDisabilityEmployer ReimbursementDisproportionate ResultAppellate DivisionNew York
References
9
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

Claim of Regenbogen v. New York State Willard Psychiatric Center

The case involves an appeal regarding a workers' compensation claim for mental injury filed by a former employee of Willard Psychiatric Center, who later worked for the Workers’ Compensation Board. The claim, initially found compensable, faced jurisdictional challenges after a March 1997 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 20 (2) (a) mandated neutral arbitration for Board employees' claims pending on or after its effective date. The court found that the Workers’ Compensation Board lacked jurisdiction to issue its June 1997 amended decision because the claim was still 'pending' after the amendment's effective date. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the entire matter for arbitration, emphasizing that the legislative intent was to remove any appearance of partiality in such claims.

Workers' Compensation BoardJurisdictional DisputeRetroactive Application of LawStatutory AmendmentArbitration MandateMental Stress ClaimAppellate ProcedurePending ClaimsBoard Employee ClaimsAdministrative Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Keser v. New York State Elmira Psychiatric Center

This case addresses whether late payment penalty provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) apply to reimbursements made by an employer’s compensation carrier for wages paid during an employee's disability, and if so, whether they apply when reimbursement is in a form other than monetary payment to the employee. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, answering both questions in the affirmative. A 20% penalty was upheld against the State Insurance Fund for late reimbursement to the New York State Elmira Psychiatric Center, the employer of claimant Peter Keser. The ruling emphasizes that for penalty purposes, no distinction should be made between awards payable directly to claimants and those payable to an employer as reimbursement, and the mechanics of payment (e.g., accounting credit) do not alter the need for timely compliance with award terms, promoting prompt payment of workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' CompensationLate Payment PenaltyEmployer ReimbursementDisability BenefitsStatutory InterpretationSection 25(3)(f)Compensation DefinitionCarrier LiabilityPrompt PaymentAccrued Leave
References
6
Case No. ADJ3357317 (OAK 0311479)
Regular
May 04, 2016

MERY CORDOBA vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, YORK RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Mery Cordoba's petition for reconsideration. Applicant sought reconsideration of the denial of her psychiatric injury claim, arguing that her trial testimony revealed new information not considered by the Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs). The Board found that the applicant's testimony regarding childhood molestation and a past stable marriage was unrelated to work events and did not meet the burden of proof for a predominantly work-related psychiatric injury. Furthermore, the Board held that discovery was properly closed, and the applicant had ample opportunity to present this information to the QMEs.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDIN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICESYORK RISK SERVICESPetition for ReconsiderationDENIEDwcjtimely filedDate of Injurycare providerneck
References
0
Case No. VNO 0380163
Regular
Dec 14, 2007

LAWRENCE REICHELT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (LAPD), Permissibly Self-Insured

The City of Los Angeles sought removal to obtain a psychiatric QME evaluation for an applicant who claimed psychiatric injury related to a past industrial injury. The Board granted removal, holding that Labor Code section 4062.1 applies prospectively to all injuries, regardless of date. The Court amended the previous order to allow the defendant to request a panel of three psychiatric QMEs under section 4062.1(b).

RemovalPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorPsychiatric EvaluationLabor Code Section 4062.1SB 899Date of InjuryProspective ApplicationSection 4067.5Competing Statutory Provisions
References
1
Case No. ADJ362898 (STK 0200921)
Regular
Apr 23, 2012

SAVINDER LAL vs. US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC. dba AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, which sought to prevent the issuance of a psychiatric QME panel. The Board found the defendant's argument that Labor Code § 3208.3(d) prohibits payment for psychiatric QMEs due to short employment duration was misplaced, as QME costs are medical-legal expenses, not compensation. The Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, deeming it moot and improperly filed as it relied on a mistaken belief that the removal petition was automatically denied. Therefore, the order for the psychiatric QME panel stands.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluationPsychiatryLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Medical-Legal ExpenseApplicant Employment DurationSudden and Extraordinary Employment ConditionWCJ Report and Recommendation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Radigan v. Radigan

This matrimonial action involves an appeal from an order denying a motion for a psychiatric examination. Both parties seek custody of their 15-year-old son. An initial evaluation by a social worker, based only on interviews, recommended custody to the plaintiff wife. The defendant husband moved for a psychiatric examination citing the superficiality of the social worker's report and concerns about his son's mental health. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granting the motion to the extent that the plaintiff, their son, and the defendant must all undergo examination by a court-appointed psychiatrist, with costs borne by the defendant.

Matrimonial LawCustody DisputePsychiatric ExaminationAppellate ReviewCPLR 3121Mental Health EvaluationFamily ServicesAlcoholismChild CounselingCourt-Appointed Expert
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ludwig v. ROCHESTER PSYCHIATRIC CENTER

Plaintiff Annie Ludwig, a former Psychiatric Nurse II, brought an action against her former employer, Rochester Psychiatric Center (RPC), and the New York State Office of Mental Health, alleging unlawful retaliation in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York Human Rights Law. Ludwig claimed she was subjected to disciplinary actions and reassignment after reporting sexual harassment by a coworker. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court determined that Ludwig failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or to demonstrate that the defendants' legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for her discipline and transfer were pretextual. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Employment RetaliationSexual HarassmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting AnalysisPretext
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Handicapped Child

The Orchard Park Central School District (District) sought a court-ordered subpoena for psychiatric and psychological records of an infant student from the Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center. The District intended to use these records in an appeal initiated by the student's parents concerning the child's handicapping condition. The parents cross-moved to quash the subpoena, asserting the records were privileged and their consent for release had been withdrawn. Justice Thomas P. Flaherty ruled that no legislative exception existed to abrogate the physician-patient and psychologist-client privileges in this context, especially over parental objection. Consequently, the court denied the District's motion for the subpoena and granted the parents' cross-motion to quash, underscoring the protection of confidential communications in a child's best interests.

Education LawStudent RecordsPsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashParental RightsCommittee on HandicappedFair Hearing
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 978 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