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
Jun 29, 1988

Claim of Baker v. Three Village Central School District

The employer appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found that the claimant had a causally related disability after a head injury sustained on September 15, 1982. The employer contested the finding of disability subsequent to November 1, 1982, arguing that a psychologist's testimony should not have been considered on the issue of causal relationship because the psychologist was not a physician. The Board, however, based its decision on a comprehensive review of the record, including reports and testimony from a psychiatrist, as well as the testimony of the claimant and the psychologist. The court affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding ample expert medical evidence supporting the disability and concluding that the psychologist's testimony was relevant to the length of the disability. The court found no irrationality in the Board's conclusion and no basis to disturb the decision.

Workers' CompensationHead InjuryDisabilityCausal RelationshipPsychiatric EvaluationNeuropsychologyExpert TestimonyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical Evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ3103905
Regular
Oct 28, 2011

JOSE PENALOZA VALDEZ vs. MANUEL AVILA, TRANSGUARD INSURANCE, Administered By FRYE CLAIMS CONSULTATION

This case concerns an applicant awarded 68% permanent disability, including a significant portion for psyche injury, based on a psychologist's report. The defendant appeals, arguing the psychologist's report was improperly admitted and they were denied the opportunity for rebuttal. The Appeals Board rescinded the award, finding that while the report was admissible, the defendant should have been allowed to obtain a rebuttal report, especially since the psychologist was not the primary treating physician. The case is returned for further proceedings to develop the record regarding the psyche injury and disability claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryPermanent DisabilityMedical Report AdmissibilityQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rockland County Department of Social Services ex rel. McM. v. Brian McM.

The case addresses the applicability of Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vii) to a nonparty mother's confidential communications with her psychologist and social worker during a child protective proceeding. The father, accused of sexually abusing his son, sought to subpoena the mother's records, which she moved to quash, citing privilege. The Family Court denied the motion regarding the psychologist, ruling that the privilege did not apply. This appellate court affirmed, holding that FCA § 1046 (a) (vii) abrogates psychologist-client and social worker-client privileges for all relevant evidence in child protective proceedings, not just for parties. It emphasized that the child's best interests in determining the truth of the abuse allegations and preventing unnecessary estrangement from the father outweigh the nonparty mother's confidentiality interests. The court ordered an in camera review of the subpoenaed records to determine their relevance.

Child Protective ServicesFamily Court Act Article 10Psychologist-Client PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegeChild Sexual Abuse AllegationsFact-Finding HearingSubpoena EnforcementNonparty Parent RightsIn Camera ReviewBest Interests of the Child
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1992

Matter of P.

The appellant, Rashmi P., appealed a Family Court's finding that he sexually abused his daughter, Parul. The Appellate Division affirmed the order of disposition, dismissing the appeal from the superseded October 12, 1990 order. The court found that the Family Court's determination of abuse was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This was based on consistent out-of-court statements made by the child to a social worker and a caseworker, corroborated by the testimony of a psychologist. The psychologist, an expert in child sexual abuse, stated that the child's allegations and behavior were consistent with the inter-familial, child sex-abuse syndrome. The appellant did not testify or present any evidence.

sexual abusechild abusefamily courtappellate reviewcorroborationexpert testimonyout-of-court statementschild sex-abuse syndromepreponderance of evidenceparental rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Karasek v. LaJoie

Plaintiff initiated a malpractice action against Arlene Levine, a licensed psychologist, alleging negligent misdiagnosis and treatment of a multiple personality disorder. The central legal question involved whether the claim was subject to the 2.5-year medical malpractice statute of limitations (CPLR 214-a) or the 3-year general professional malpractice statute (CPLR 214 (6)). The Supreme Court denied Levine's motion to dismiss, but the Appellate Division reversed, deeming the services medical malpractice. The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, ruled that a psychologist's services are not 'medical' under CPLR 214-a, thus applying the 3-year limitation period and reinstating the plaintiff's timely claim.

mental health malpracticepsychologist negligencestatute of limitationsCPLR 214-a interpretationprofessional malpracticemedical vs. non-medical servicesmultiple personality disordernegligent misdiagnosisappellate reviewstatutory construction
References
8
Case No. ADJ7099916
Regular
Jun 20, 2014

ANGELICA SANCHEZ vs. TORRES FARM LABOR, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding industrial injury to the applicant's cervical spine and psyche, in addition to admitted injuries, and awarding temporary disability. The defendant argued the temporary disability award was improper as the psychologist relied upon by the judge did not review orthopedic records, and that EDD benefits should be credited. The WCJ conceded the temporary disability finding lacked substantial evidence, agreeing the psychologist's opinion was insufficient due to lack of review of the orthopedic records. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's recommendation to limit temporary disability to the period found by the orthopedic QME. A dissenting opinion argued that substantial evidence, including the primary treating physician's reports, supported the initial temporary disability award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityPsychiatric InjuryOrthopedic InjurySubstantial Medical EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluatorApportionmentPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Evelyn B.

The petitioner initiated proceedings to terminate the parental rights of the respondent, mother of Evelyn B., alleging mental illness or retardation after Evelyn B. was adjudicated neglected. The Family Court, Clinton County, terminated parental rights, relying on testimony from a court-appointed clinical psychologist who diagnosed the respondent with an untreatable learning disorder and mixed personality disorder, rendering her unable to provide proper care. The respondent appealed, presenting testimony from her treating therapist suggesting potential improvement. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination due to the respondent's mental illness and upholding the Family Court's discretion in crediting the court-appointed psychologist over the respondent's therapist, whose expert qualification was also appropriately denied.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewClinical PsychologyForensic EvaluationPersonality DisorderLearning DisorderExpert Witness Credibility
References
6
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

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
Sep 22, 2014

Muth v. Wali Mohammad, M.D., P.C.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the motion of defendant Howard M. Rombom, Ph.D., P.C. for summary judgment, but this decision was unanimously reversed on appeal. The case involves a decedent who committed suicide three weeks after undergoing Workers’ Compensation examinations and evaluations by Dr. Nicholas Radcliffe, a staff psychologist for Rombom P.C. The decedent was seeking to link his depressive disorder to an earlier injury for benefits reinstatement. Despite a psychologist-patient relationship, the appellate court found Rombom P.C. not liable, as Dr. Radcliffe exercised professional medical judgment, including in his decision not to inquire about the decedent’s access to firearms. The court concluded that Dr. Radcliffe's actions were not a proximate cause of the decedent's suicide, given the time elapsed since the last visit.

Summary JudgmentPsychologist MalpracticeSuicideWorkers' CompensationProximate CauseAppellate ReversalMedical JudgmentDuty of CareMental Health EvaluationWrongful Death
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 97 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