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 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. ADJ1279352
Regular
Nov 18, 2010

WARREN BARNA vs. PACIFIC TUBE, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) sought reconsideration of an award finding them liable for an applicant's psychiatric injury. The applicant had previously settled orthopedic claims and a cumulative trauma claim. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the original decision, adding specific findings required by Labor Code section 4751 regarding the applicant's pre-existing psychiatric disability and the compensable industrial psychiatric injury. The Board affirmed the original finding of liability against the SIBTF, while clarifying the applicant's eligibility for SIBTF benefits and addressing the issue of potential offsets.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fundpsychiatric disabilitypre-existing disabilityindustrial injurypermanent partial disabilityLabor Code section 4751Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardreconsiderationcumulative traumaspecific injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ3135090 (SAC 0355157) ADJ6834808
Regular
Sep 12, 2019

GUY LEE vs. UOP/MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision denying benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF). Applicant's prior stipulation dismissing claims for sleep disturbance, sexual dysfunction, and psychiatric injury bound him from pursuing these for SIBTF benefits. Even without those dismissals, applicant's permanent disability rating for the subsequent injury, after adjustments, did not meet the 35% threshold required for SIBTF eligibility. The WCJ's finding that the industrial injury was not the predominant cause of the claimed psychiatric injury also contributed to the denial.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751permanent partial disabilitystipulated dismissalpredominant causepsychiatric injurybilateral carpal tunneldiminished future earning capacityWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1997

Claim of Crawford v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant who sustained a finger injury from a hypodermic needle in 1987. After an initial workers' compensation award, the case was reopened in 1993 when the claimant asserted a claim for a consequential posttraumatic neurosis or 'AIDS reaction phobia'. The employer argued that the two-year Statute of Limitations under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 barred the psychiatric claim. However, the Board rejected this argument and affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision to address the psychiatric condition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that Section 28 does not bar amendment of a timely claim to include consequential injuries if a relationship exists between the subsequent claim and the initial injury.

Psychiatric Injury ClaimStatute of Limitations Workers' CompConsequential Psychological InjuriesHypodermic Needle InjuryAIDS Reaction PhobiaWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSection 28 BarAmendment of Timely ClaimCausally Related Disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ9674255
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

YAN LIU vs. HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case concerns an applicant who alleges both orthopedic and psychiatric injuries from her employment as a casino dealer. While the Board affirmed the finding of orthopedic injury, it deferred the issue of psychiatric injury. The Board clarified that Labor Code § 4660.1(c) does not bar psychiatric claims arising directly from employment events, but it requires a medical apportionment of causation between direct psychiatric injury and injury as a consequence of physical injury. The matter was returned to the trial level for further development of the record regarding the psychiatric injury and its apportionment.

AOE/COELabor Code Section 4660.1(c)psychiatric injurycompensable consequenceviolent actsubstantial medical evidencetreating physicianQMEcontinuous traumaharassment
References
10
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

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. ADJ9041984 ADJ9040577
Regular
Dec 21, 2018

ISABEL VALENCIA vs. FIFTH AND PACIFIC COMPANIES, HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC.

This case involves applicant Isabel Valencia's claim for psychiatric injury stemming from a previously stipulated orthopedic injury. The defendant contended the psychiatric injury was not work-related, arguing it was a consequence of the physical injury. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that a "compensable consequence" injury, like a psychiatric condition resulting from an industrial orthopedic injury, is industrially related. The Board also found it appropriate to further develop the record regarding applicant's disability, as the current psychiatric condition prevents accurate assessment.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDFIFTH AND PACIFIC COMPANIESHARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANYBROADSPIRE SERVICESINC.ADJ9041984ADJ9040577Findings Award and Orderstipulationpsychiatric injury
References
1
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04939 [197 AD3d 1376]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Matter of Hughes v. Mid Hudson Psychiatric Ctr.

Claimant Warren Hughes suffered a work-related right knee injury in December 2016. The Workers' Compensation Board found a 45% schedule loss of use (SLU) but applied apportionment, attributing 17.5% to a prior noncompensable injury from 1976 based on the 1996 Medical Guidelines, resulting in a 27.5% SLU for the 2016 injury. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's apportionment finding, ruling it was not supported by substantial evidence. The court noted the absence of operative reports or objective medical documentation for the 1976 injury and concluded the Board improperly fashioned its own medical opinion. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further consistent proceedings.

ApportionmentSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' Compensation BoardMedical EvidencePrior InjuryCausationKnee InjuryMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Medical GuidelinesAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04221 [185 AD3d 1342]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Kleban v. Central NY Psychiatric Ctr.

Claimant Derek Kleban sustained a right shoulder injury in 2013, for which he received a 28.75% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his right arm. In 2017, he suffered a work-related injury to his right elbow, with his physician finding a 20% SLU of the right elbow. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that claimant was not entitled to a further SLU award for the elbow injury because the prior SLU award for the right arm exceeded the current 20% SLU. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) and prior precedents, which limit SLU awards based on the injured body member and degree of impairment, and allow multiple awards only for loss of use of more than one member or parts thereof, but not when a subsequent injury to a part of a previously awarded larger member results in a lower SLU.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' Compensation BenefitsRight Shoulder InjuryRight Elbow InjuryImpairment RatingPrior AwardSubsequent InjuryAppellate DecisionAffirmationWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 12,980 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