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

People v. Fratt

The defendant, charged with second-degree murder, provided notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence from Dr. Martha Rosen, a defense-retained psychologist, who would testify about dependent personality disorder and 'battered woman's syndrome.' The prosecution subsequently moved for an order compelling Dr. Rosen to prepare a report outlining her findings and evaluations, and for the discovery of her notes. The court granted the prosecution's motion, ruling that the defendant waived psychologist-patient privilege by placing her mental state at issue. The court further held that CPL 250.10, read in conjunction with CPLR 3101(d), requires the defense to provide a detailed notice of psychiatric evidence, including expert qualifications, examination details, relied-upon materials, diagnostic opinions, and the bases for those opinions. The court denied the motion for a pretrial hearing as premature.

Psychiatric EvidenceDiscoveryExpert TestimonyPsychologist-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeCriminal Procedure LawCivil Practice Law and RulesMental StateBattered Woman's SyndromeForensic Evaluation
References
14
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04404
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2021

Matter of Decandia v. Pilgrim Psychiatric Ctr.

Claimant, a security and security officer, filed a workers' compensation claim nearly six years after allegedly being bitten by ticks in June 2013, seeking benefits for consequential Lyme disease. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's award of benefits, ruling that the claim was untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28 and that there was insufficient medical evidence to establish Lyme disease or a causal connection to his employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the claim was untimely given the nearly six-year delay in filing and that the Board's finding of insufficient medical evidence for Lyme disease and causation was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Law § 28Timeliness of ClaimLyme Disease DiagnosisCausal RelationshipSufficiency of Medical EvidenceTick-borne DiseaseStatute of LimitationsAppellate Division Third DepartmentWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Guz v. Jewelers Machinist, Inc.

A factory worker claimant sustained a work-related injury in March 2002, leading to a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The case was established for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, later amended to include a neck injury and aggravated back condition. In 2007, a major depressive disorder was added, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causally related psychiatric disability. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this finding. The claimant appealed this reversal. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that the claimant bears the burden of establishing a causal relationship with competent medical evidence and that the Board is the sole judge of witness credibility. The court found that the Board’s determination, which was based on rejecting the claimant's treating psychiatrist's testimony due to lack of complete information and relying on subjective accounts, was supported by substantial evidence.

Psychiatric DisabilityMajor Depressive DisorderCausationMedical EvidenceExpert TestimonyWitness CredibilityWorkers’ Compensation BenefitsCarpal Tunnel SyndromeNeck InjuryBack Condition
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matsa v. Wallach

The petitioner, a former Psychiatric Social Worker at Creedmoor State Hospital, was dismissed from her probationary role as Psychiatric Social Work Supervisor II at Brooklyn State Hospital after 26 weeks for unsatisfactory performance. She initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing her position became permanent after a 12-week probationary period and her dismissal was in bad faith. While Special Term agreed, the appellate court reversed, clarifying that her appointment was an original one subject to a 26-week probation. The court found proper notice for the extended probation and no evidence of bad faith in her dismissal.

Probationary PeriodCivil Service LawInterinstitutional PromotionOpen Competitive ExaminationDismissalUnsatisfactory PerformanceBad FaithReinstatementArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meyer v. State of New York Office of Mental Health

Plaintiff Jill Meyer sued Defendants State of New York Office of Mental Health (OMH), Creedmoor Psychiatric Center (CPC), and Caterina Grandi for alleged gender, religion, and age discrimination under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, stemming from a failure-to-hire claim in 2011. Plaintiff, a Jewish woman over 60, alleged she was not hired for psychiatrist positions at CPC due to discrimination, despite being qualified. Defendants moved for summary judgment, citing Plaintiff's past poor performance at CPC and the superior qualifications of the hired candidates. The Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff's Title VII claims, dismissing them with prejudice, finding no sufficient evidence of gender-based discrimination and concluding that the religious discrimination claim lacked sufficient evidence of pretext. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims (NYSHRL and NYCHRL), dismissing them without prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationFailure to HireTitle VIIGender DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kessler v. Fairmont Theater, Inc.

Claimant, employed for two days in 1986 as a projectionist, sought workers' compensation benefits for psychiatric injury and eye injury. He alleged harassment from his employer and supervisor caused a nervous breakdown, and projector light injured his eyes. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge dismissed the psychiatric injury claim but found prima facie evidence for vision impairment, remitting that part for further development. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled against the psychiatric trauma claim, a decision supported by employer and supervisor testimony denying harassment and claimant's psychiatrist confirming prior psychiatric issues. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was based on substantial evidence and that issues of credibility are within the Board's purview.

Psychiatric InjuryNervous BreakdownEye InjuryEmployment TerminationIntoxicationHarassmentCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ924734 (MON 0299710)
Regular
Feb 07, 2014

VARDAN ESSAIAN vs. CAD FABULOUS, INC., STATE FARM CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award of 100% permanent disability, finding the evidence did not justify an unapportioned award. The Board cited concerns regarding the apportionment of psychiatric disability and the impact of sub rosa video evidence on the applicant's claimed limitations. The case is remanded for further development of the record, specifically regarding the psychiatric AME's apportionment reasoning and the vocational experts' conclusions in light of the video evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAmended Findings of Fact and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentCumulative TraumaAgreed Medical ExaminerPsychiatryOrthopedicsSub Rosa Video
References
3
Case No. ADJ2628303
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

GLORIA CAIRES vs. SHARP HEALTHCARE, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Appeals Board rescinded the original award and returned the case for further proceedings due to insufficient medical evidence on apportionment. Specifically, the Board found that the opinions of the orthopedic and psychiatric medical evaluators regarding the apportionment of permanent disability lacked substantial medical evidence. The orthopedic evaluator's apportionment methodology, referencing an AMA Guides example, was deemed improper under current Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664. The psychiatric evaluator's apportionment was also found insufficient as it did not adequately explain how psychiatric permanent disability should be apportioned separately from injury causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability ApportionmentQualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent ImpairmentRange of Motion MethodDiagnosis-Related Estimate (DRE) MethodCompensable ConsequenceCausation of Permanent DisabilitySubstantial Medical Evidence
References
12
Case No. ADJ10475606
Regular
Sep 13, 2022

AMBER FAIRRIS vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that the applicant did not sustain a compensable psychiatric injury. The applicant argued the finding was not based on substantial medical evidence, specifically challenging the opinions of a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME). The Board adopted the judge's report, which found that while work stress may have exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing conditions, the predominant cause of her psychiatric diagnoses was non-industrial, as required by Labor Code section 3208.3. Therefore, the applicant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual employment events were the predominant cause of her psychiatric injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLegally UninsuredIndustrial InjuryPsychePredominant CauseNon-Industrial BasisExacerbationPre-existing ConditionsLabor Code Section 3208.3
References
0
Case No. ADJ10275361
Regular
Jan 27, 2020

RUSSELL MCFADDEN (deceased); RENEE MCFADDEN, JAZMINE MCFADDEN, and RUSSELL MCFADDEN, II vs. KEOLIS TRANSIT AMERICA; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a judge's decision denying a death benefit claim for Russell McFadden, who died by suicide. The applicant contended his death resulted from an industrial psychiatric injury due to occupational stress. Medical evidence indicated that industrial factors were only a 35% cause of the decedent's psychiatric disorder, with significant pre-existing conditions and drug use being the predominant causes. Furthermore, the Board found no evidence that the suicide was an irresistible impulse, distinguishing it from cases where an industrial injury directly causes a mental condition that prevents resistance to suicide. Therefore, the claim was denied based on the psychiatric injury not being predominantly industrially caused and the suicide not meeting the criteria for compensability.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRenee McFaddenKeolis Transit AmericaLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyADJ10275361Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationIndustrial Psychiatric InjuryOccupational Stress and StrainCompensable Death ClaimLabor Code Section 3600(a)(6)
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 11,043 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