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
Nov 17, 2005

Nikolic v. Regent Wall Street Hotel

The claimant sustained work-related physical injuries and a subsequent psychiatric condition. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge allowed reports from a Serbian neuropsychiatrist to establish continuing psychiatric disability, despite objections from the employer and carrier concerning the doctor's credentials. The Workers’ Compensation Board, in an amended decision, rejected the objection to the Serbian doctor's report and found no prejudice to the carrier regarding a compensation award made prior to an independent medical examination. The appeals court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the carrier waived the right to object by not cross-examining the doctor, and that the Board had continuing jurisdiction to amend its initial decision.

foreign health care provider reportpsychiatric conditionadmissibility of evidenceWorkers’ Compensation Boardcontinuing jurisdictionwaiver of objectionindependent medical examinationappellate reviewNew York Workers' Compensationmedical credentials
References
10
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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prevost v. New York State Department of Social Services

The petitioners, maternal grandparents, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services and the Warren County Department of Social Services. They sought to expunge a report from the State Central Register indicating inadequate guardianship concerning their grandson, Justin. Justin had been placed in foster care, and concerns arose about his behavior after monthly visits with the petitioners, prompting a psychiatrist to recommend discontinuing overnight visits. The psychiatric report detailed Justin's anger towards his grandmother and later allegations of diapering. Despite the petitioners' denials and claims of bias, the agency's decision to indicate inadequate guardianship was upheld after administrative review and a fair hearing. The court ultimately confirmed the determination, citing substantial evidence based on Justin's consistent accounts.

Child protective servicesInadequate guardianshipFoster careAdoption eligibilityCPLR article 78 proceedingAdministrative reviewExpungement of reportHearsay evidenceCredibility determinationSocial Services Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ1666303 LAO 0885884
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

ALTHEA RUSSELL vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES, BROADSPIRE

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award finding the applicant sustained back, leg, and psyche injuries resulting in 65% permanent disability. The defendant argued that psychiatric medical reports were not substantial evidence and inadmissible. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant waived objections to the psychiatric reports by failing to object at the mandatory settlement conference where discovery closed. Furthermore, the Board found the defendant's assertion regarding the content of the reports was factually inaccurate, and the reports did constitute substantial medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilitySubstantial Medical EvidenceAdmissibleDiscoveryMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code Section 5502Invited Error
References
5
Case No. ADJ7181042
Regular
Oct 20, 2017

CORINNE KOSTER vs. AUTOZONE, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address the applicant's claimed psychiatric injury. While the initial award found injury only to the applicant's back, reports from Dr. Ghassemi and Dr. Mostafavi suggested a compensable psychiatric injury. The WCAB found these reports to be potentially substantial evidence but noted inconsistencies in the applicant's trial testimony. Therefore, the WCAB amended the award to defer issues related to psychiatric injury, its resulting disability, and medical treatment, remanding the case for further development of the record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeQualified Medical EvaluatorPsychiatric InjuryPermanent DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionRecord Development
References
6
Case No. ADJ3615708 (BAK 0147668) ADJ2881957 (BAK 0147353) ADJ1664277 (BAK 0147354)
Regular
Oct 27, 2015

FRANCISCO JAVIER CASILLAS vs. SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision, arguing that a key psychiatric AME report was unreliable and that the WCJ failed to address this in the opinion. The WCAB denied the reconsideration, finding that the WCJ properly relied on the reports of a different psychiatric AME, thus rendering the applicant's argument regarding the disputed report irrelevant. However, the WCAB granted reconsideration on its own motion to correct clerical errors in the original decision identified by the parties. The matter was then remanded to the WCJ to reissue a corrected decision.

California Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Awards and OrdersAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. John StalbergDr. Carl Marusaksubstantial medical evidencepsychiatric claimspermanent disabilitylabor code section 132a
References
4
Case No. ADJ803213 (FRE 0210212)
Regular
May 26, 2009

JOSE ENRIQUE RAMIREZ vs. ELKOR REALTY, ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse a judge's award of increased permanent disability benefits. The original award found applicant sustained a psychiatric injury as a consequence of his orthopedic injury, relying on a QME's report. However, the Board found the psychiatric QME's report lacked substantial evidence, failing to adequately address non-industrial factors and industrial causation requirements under Labor Code section 3208.3. Consequently, the Board reversed the award, denying applicant's petition to reopen for new and further disability, including psychiatric injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPetition to ReopenIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryOrthopedic InjuryCompensable ConsequenceQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. ADJ4096872
Regular
Nov 15, 2012

RAYMUNDO CHAVEZ vs. OAKHURST INDUSTRIES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns applicant Raymundo Chavez's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board denied his petition, upholding the judge's finding of industrial injury to the low back and psyche, but not internal systems or sleep disorder. The applicant challenged the permanent disability rating for his psychiatric injury and the denial of his internal and sleep disorder claims, arguing the judge should have relied on specific physician reports. The Board found the applicant's treating physician's report on internal/sleep issues lacked substantial evidence, and that the judge properly exercised discretion in favoring one psychiatric report over another.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRaymundo ChavezOakhurst IndustriesTravelers Property Casualty Company of AmericaFindings of Fact and Awardindustrial injurylow backpsychepermanent disabilityapportionment
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,662 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