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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2001

Claim of Multari v. Keenan Oil Co.

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from July 25, 2001, which found that a section 32 waiver agreement included his major depression condition. The claimant had settled two compensation cases from 1972 and 1994 for $93,000, closing both. He later argued the agreement failed to cover his major depression, established in 1996 in conjunction with the 1994 accident. The Board affirmed its jurisdiction and rejected the claimant's contention that the major depression was excluded. The appellate court agreed the Board had jurisdiction to determine if a condition was included in a section 32 agreement. On the merits, the court found the Board correctly concluded the major depression condition was subsumed in the settlement, citing the agreement's unequivocal terms and the claimant's hearing testimony. The agreement stated cases could not be reopened "for any purpose whatsoever" and permanently discontinued weekly benefits that included compensation for depression.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementMajor DepressionPsychiatric ConditionJurisdictionSection 32 AgreementAppealBoard ReviewScope of Agreement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2001

Claim of McCabe v. Watertown Correctional Facility

Claimant, a correction officer, worked long, exhaustive shifts in extremely cold conditions during a severe ice storm in January 1998, leading to an upper respiratory infection and pneumonia. Despite his illness, he continued to work, subsequently experiencing seizures and being diagnosed with postencephalitic epilepsy on February 11, 1998. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board established his case, finding accident, notice, and causal relationship, but the employer appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing uncontroverted medical evidence that the claimant's severe fatigue from his work environment depressed his immune system, making him susceptible to the virus causing his epilepsy.

Workers' CompensationPostencephalitic EpilepsyWork-Related IllnessImmune System DepressionExtreme Weather ConditionsCorrection OfficerOccupational HazardCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mancini v. Scotia Police Department

A police officer suffered work-related physical injuries in 1973. Years later, in 1979, he filed a claim for severe depression and nervous exhaustion, alleging these conditions were caused by his police duties or the initial 1973 accident. Both applications were denied by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found no causal relationship between his emotional disturbance and his employment. The Board's decision was based on conflicting medical testimonies, ultimately crediting doctors who found no job-related link over the claimant's psychiatrist and an impartial psychiatrist whose opinion was conditional on unproven allegations of harassment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's role as the finder of fact in resolving testimonial and medical conflicts.

Workers' CompensationEmotional DisturbanceDepressive NeurosisPolice OfficerCausationMedical Testimony ConflictBoard Decision ReviewHarassment AllegationsMental Health ClaimAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friedman v. NBC Inc.

The case involves an appeal from two Workers' Compensation Board decisions. The decedent, an NBC Inc. employee, committed suicide at work due to severe occupational stress exacerbating a pre-existing depressive condition. His widow sought workers' compensation death benefits, which NBC Inc. controverted, citing willful intention and lack of work-relatedness. The Workers' Compensation Board found the suicide causally related to extraordinary work stress and deemed it an accidental injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of a causal link between job stress and the decedent's psychic injury, even with a pre-existing mental condition, and that the claim was not barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 10.

Work-related suicidePsychic injuryCausal connectionWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardDepressive conditionExtraordinary stressPreexisting mental conditionSubstantial evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piatt v. Colvin

Plaintiff April D. Piatt challenged the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her disability insurance benefits, arguing the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in evaluating her severe impairments (major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, substance abuse) and non-severe conditions like back pain, carpal tunnel, and restless leg syndrome. Piatt also contested the ALJ's adherence to the treating physician rule regarding Dr. Mehl-Madrona and Ms. Masceri, and the credibility assessment of her testimony. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and noting the ALJ properly weighed medical opinions and found no reversible error in the credibility analysis or development of the record. Consequently, Piatt's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeALJ decision reviewMental impairmentDepressionAnxiety disorderSubstance abuseResidual functional capacityTreating physician rule
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Rockefeller

Plaintiffs, representing residents of the Willowbrook State School for the Mentally Retarded, sought judicial intervention to improve inhumane living conditions. The court found severe overcrowding, chronic understaffing of medical and care personnel, and inadequate facilities, leading to a hazardous environment. While denying a broad constitutional 'right to treatment,' the court affirmed the residents' 'right to protection from harm.' Consequently, the court issued a preliminary injunction mandating specific actions, including immediate hiring of additional ward attendants, nurses, physical therapists, and physicians, repair of inoperable toilets, prohibition of seclusion, and securing a contract with an accredited hospital for acute medical services. The court also reserved the power to adjust salaries to attract necessary staff.

Mentally Retarded RightsInstitutional CareProtection From HarmPreliminary InjunctionStaffing ShortagesFacility ConditionsCivil Rights LitigationDue Process ConcernsEighth AmendmentState Funding
References
68
Case No. 534608
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2023

Matter of Brown v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Claimant Tracey Brown, a cleaner, sought workers' compensation benefits for anxiety and depression, attributing them to COVID-19 exposure and inadequate safety measures at the New York City Transit Authority. Despite a prior anxiety history, claimant contended her condition re-emerged after a May 2020 anxiety attack, preventing her return to work. Psychologist Eli Isaacson diagnosed a causally-related anxiety and major depressive disorder. However, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, citing a lack of credible medical evidence linking the psychological condition to employment. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concurring that Isaacson's opinion lacked credibility due to its failure to consider claimant's prior anxiety treatment and anxiety experienced outside of work.

Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryAnxiety DisorderMajor Depressive DisorderCausationMedical EvidenceCOVID-19 ExposureAppellate ReviewCredibilitySelf-insured Employer
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,456 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