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

State v. J.A.

This case addresses the extent to which a psychiatrist can rely on out-of-court materials, such as presentence reports and parole records, to establish a history of sex offenses for a "mental abnormality" diagnosis in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding. The petitioner's expert psychiatrist diagnosed respondent Mr. A. with pedophilia, paraphilia n.o.s., and antisocial personality disorder, relying on various criminal history documents. The diagnosis of pedophilia specifically hinged on two 1961 incidents, whose underlying facts were challenged by the respondent as unreliable hearsay. The court analyzed the professional reliability and business record exceptions to the hearsay rule, finding that documents supporting 1980 and 1992 convictions were reliable due to corroboration. However, the reports for the 1961 convictions were deemed unreliable, lacking sufficient indicia of reliability, contemporaneity, and unchallengeable contents. Consequently, the court disregarded and excluded the expert's conclusion of pedophilia, as it was solely based on these unreliable hearsay documents, while affirming the reliance on other, more reliable evidence.

Mental Hygiene Law Article 10Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA)Expert TestimonyHearsay EvidenceProfessional Reliability ExceptionBusiness Records ExceptionPsychiatric DiagnosisPedophiliaPresentence ReportsParole Records
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 1975

Brewery Workers Pension Fund v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

In an action for a declaratory judgment and for specific performance of a certain agreement, defendants appeal from a judgment and order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 29, 1975, which, *inter alia,* granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Judgment and order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. There are no issues requiring a trial.

Declaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceSummary JudgmentAppealAffirmedQueens CountySupreme CourtContract LawJudgment and OrderAppellate Division
References
0
Case No. ADJ2010922 (VNO 0552057)
Regular
Dec 17, 2012

MICHAEL ROSADO vs. KJM ELECTRIC WORKS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior order for a new QME panel. The Board found no evidence that the applicant had actually been treated by Dr. Hendricks, nor a recorded stipulation for a new panel. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, specifically to address Dr. Hendricks' diagnosis of pernicious anemia and its impact on the applicant's claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical EvaluatorIndustrial InjuryOrthopedicsPernicious AnemiaUnqualified StipulationDiscovery ProcessPriority Conference
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04322 [240 AD3d 1230]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2025

Skrzynski v. Akebono Brake Corp.

Joseph A. Skrzynski sued Akebono Brake Corporation and Ford Motor Company for personal injuries, specifically mesothelioma, resulting from asbestos exposure from friction products while working at an automobile dealership. The jury found Ford Motor Company liable for failing to warn about the asbestos hazards. On appeal, Ford challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both general and specific causation. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial evidence was legally sufficient to establish both that chrysotile asbestos from automotive brakes can cause peritoneal mesothelioma (general causation) and that plaintiff's exposure levels were sufficient to cause his illness (specific causation). A dissenting justice argued that plaintiff's experts offered insufficient evidence for both general and specific causation, particularly regarding the specific type of asbestos and the quantification of plaintiff's exposure.

Products LiabilityAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaFailure to WarnCausationGeneral CausationSpecific CausationAppellate ReviewJury VerdictExpert Testimony
References
16
Case No. MON 0340665
Regular
Jul 02, 2008

DANIEL EARL PETERSON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, legally uninsured and adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record, specifically ordering a formal sleep study. This action rescinded the previous award because the medical evidence presented regarding the applicant's sleep disturbance was deemed unsubstantial, lacking a formal sleep laboratory diagnosis as required by AMA Guides. The Board also noted potential correct contentions by the defendant regarding indemnity rates and overlapping temporary and permanent disability payments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMESleep StudyPermanent DisabilityFindings and AwardReconsiderationSubstantial Medical EvidenceEpworth Sleepiness ScaleAMA Guides
References
0
Case No. ADJ234831 (VNO 0352113) ADJ2036496 (VNO 0359792)
Regular
Jan 11, 2010

SHARON ABBASI vs. PREMIER AMERICA FEDERAL CREDIT; AMERICAN CASUALTY BROADSPIRE BREA, HARTFORD SACRAMENTO

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board denied the applicant's petition, upholding the finding of a psychiatric industrial injury resulting from a 1996 bank robbery. The applicant contended the WCJ erred by not finding a non-psychiatric physical injury, specifically fibromyalgia, despite evidence suggesting it. However, the Board agreed with the WCJ that the medical evidence, particularly from Drs. Gillis and Bluestone, failed to objectively substantiate an industrially related fibromyalgia diagnosis.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Joint Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPsychePermanent DisabilityApportionmentBank TellerBank RobberyFibromyalgia
References
4
Case No. ADJ9506185
Regular
Jul 13, 2016

JIM NEWELL vs. COUNTY OF KERN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Kern's petition for reconsideration of an award to Jim Newell. The award was based on industrial cumulative trauma to the lumbar spine and hypertensive cardiovascular disease, including left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). The County argued there was insufficient evidence of LVH and sought further medical development, specifically a cardiac MRI. The Board found that the existing medical evidence, including echocardiograms and expert testimony, constituted substantial evidence to support the LVH diagnosis, making further testing unnecessary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of KernJim NewellSheriff's Sergeantcumulative traumalumbar spinecirculatory systemhypertensionhypertensive cardiovascular diseaseleft ventricular hypertrophy
References
2
Case No. ADJ11072332
Regular
Jan 03, 2023

CHETAN THAKER vs. AON HEWITT CORPORATION, CNA CLAIM PLUS, INC., SEGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ), who concluded that the applicant failed to prove an industrial injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The WCJ found that the reports of the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Dr. Pretsky, constituted substantial medical evidence, despite the petitioner's disagreements regarding the diagnosis. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient justification for newly discovered evidence or specific arguments regarding factual or statutory errors.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENIEDWCJ REPORTSUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGSUBSTANTIAL MEDICAL EVIDENCEPQMEPSYCHE INJURYAOE/COELABOR CODE
References
8
Case No. ADJ9402316
Regular
Aug 02, 2019

OSCAR SANDOVAL vs. THE STRIP JOINT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Oscar Sandoval seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that denied his claim for injury to his head, jaw/teeth, psyche, and sleep disorder. The WCAB denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the medical reports submitted by applicant's physicians lacked substantial evidence. Specifically, the WCAB found that Dr. Schames' report was based on an inadequate medical history, Dr. Reichwald's report was internally inconsistent and lacked review of sufficient medical records, and Dr. Saeid's report did not sufficiently explain his diagnosis of insomnia.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJmedical-legal reportssubstantial evidenceorthopedicpsychologicalinternal medicinecervical spine
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gedon v. University Medical Residents Services, P. C.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board denying death benefits for her deceased husband, an anesthesiology resident who died from a sufentanil overdose. The Board had ruled that his death did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The claimant argued that the decedent's addiction was work-related due to job stress and access to narcotic drugs. However, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding no substantial medical evidence to specifically link the decedent's drug addiction and subsequent death to the conditions of his employment. The court noted the lack of a clear diagnosis and treating physician testimony to support the claim.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsSubstance AbuseAnesthesiologyOccupational DiseaseMedical ResidencyCausationEmployment-Related InjuryDrug OverdoseAppellate Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,273 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