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 Littles v. New York State Department of Corrections

A claimant was injured in an automobile accident approximately 10 feet from her workplace entrance, a prison. She applied for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the claimant did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was no evidence of a special hazard at the accident location or a close association of the access route with the employer's premises that would make the accident compensable as a risk of employment.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSpecial HazardAccess RoutePublic RoadOff-premises InjuryCommuting AccidentWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2006

Claim of Melo v. Jewish Board of Family & Children's Services, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The claimant, a night shift direct care worker, was assaulted and raped by a stranger in her workplace at the Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, Inc. in 1997. The Board determined that her injury did not arise out of her employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court found no causal link between the claimant's employment and the attack, noting it did not occur while she was performing duties, the building was not identified as her specific workplace, the assailant was not a coworker, and there was no employment-related motivation or increased risk from her work environment.

Assault in workplaceRapeInjury arising out of employmentCourse of employmentCausal relationshipWork environment riskEmployer liabilityWorkers' Compensation Board appealUnidentified assailantOff-duty injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2005

Claim of Fiero v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Claimant's decedent, an employee of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, was struck by a truck and died 16 days later after parking his car across the street from his office. Due to a heart condition, his employer had arranged for him to park in this lot. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship, awarding benefits. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was no special hazard at the off-premises location and the route was not controlled or endorsed by the employer, thus the accident was not a work-related hazard.

Workers CompensationScope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Hazard ExceptionPublic Highway AccidentOff-Premises InjuryCausal RelationshipDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McLeod v. Ground Handling, Inc.

This case addresses whether an accident occurring on a public street, away from the immediate place of employment but near the workplace, arose out of and in the course of employment. The court examined the 'gray area' where risks of street travel merge with employment risks, emphasizing the need for a special hazard at the accident point and a close association of the access route with the premises. The Board found no special hazard on the county road, which was used by the general public and not controlled by the employer. Consequently, the accident was deemed a risk shared by the general public, not related to the claimant's employment. The decision affirming the Board's finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment was upheld.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentOff-premises AccidentSpecial Hazard RuleStreet RiskGoing and Coming RulePublic RoadAccess RouteEmployer ControlAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1978

Di Bernardo v. Heimroth

This appeal arises from an order denying an employer's motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by Heimroth. The central legal question addresses whether an employer can be held liable to a third-party tort-feasor for their own negligence, even though Workers' Compensation Law generally bars direct employee actions against the employer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, reiterating that Workers' Compensation Law does not serve as a complete defense for an employer in actions involving a third-party tort-feasor's independent negligence. The prior ruling in Di Bernardo v Heimroth was cited as establishing a basis for employer contribution to a third-party tort-feasor, a point found to be dispositive of the current appeal.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party Tort-feasorEmployer LiabilitySummary JudgmentIndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewSection 29Workers' Compensation Defense
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1983

Claim of Hughes v. New York Telephone Co.

A line foreman, though not on duty, was requested by his employer to check a report of a broken pole. While preparing to use a company car parked in his driveway for this task, he sustained an injury to his mouth after stepping on a rake. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that this injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer appealed, arguing that, as a matter of law, the injury did not arise from employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, applying the 'special errand' exception to the general rule regarding risks of travel to and from work. It concluded that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentOff-Duty WorkEmployee InjuryAppellate ReviewAffirmationOccupational HazardWorkplace Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anowai v. Holiday Inn

Claimant, a security officer, was struck on the head by falling facade debris from an adjacent building shortly after completing his shift at a Manhattan hotel. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, deeming it within the area of egress. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the accident did not occur as an incident or risk of employment because it happened on a public street, in front of a separate building, and involved a hazard outside the employer's control. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to overturn its factual findings regarding the nexus between the accident and the claimant's employment. The court reiterated that while risks near the employment situs can merge with employment risks, the Board's discretionary determination of such risks should be respected.

Accidental InjuryScope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleEgress and IngressStreet RiskPublic SidewalkEmployer ControlFactual FindingsAppellate ReviewSecurity Officer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Young v. New York State Police

Claimant, a State Trooper, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving to work in Westchester County. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, given she was on call 24 hours a day and within her assigned geographical area, and awarded benefits. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, emphasizing that accidents during commuting typically do not arise out of employment unless there is a sufficient causal nexus established by employer control. The court found insufficient evidence of the employer's control over the claimant's activities at the time of the accident to establish this nexus, distinguishing the case from precedents where such control was present. Consequently, the claim for workers' compensation benefits was dismissed.

Commuting AccidentCourse of EmploymentArising Out Of EmploymentEmployer ControlState TrooperMotor Vehicle AccidentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal NexusAppellate ReviewClaim Dismissed
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Devlin v. Edward Petry & Co.

Joseph Devlin, an outside worker selling radio time and acting as a liaison, died from traumatic injuries after leaving a business meeting with a client. His body was discovered on New York Central tracks, and an autopsy revealed 0.15% alcohol in his brain. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found that Devlin was an outside worker, applying presumptions under Section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and concluded that his death was causally related to accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing that Devlin's employment ended at Grand Central Station. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence to classify Devlin as an 'outside' worker, and ruled that his employment continued until he reached home, finding no required deviation from employment.

Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawOutside Worker StatusCourse of EmploymentCausal RelationshipWork-Related DeathAlcohol Content in AutopsyAppellate Review of Board DecisionEmployer ResponsibilityInsurance Carrier Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Haufler v. Cambrook Fabrics Co.

An outside salesman in New York City was injured when he tripped entering a cafeteria for lunch while on his way to a client. The employer and carrier appealed a decision awarding benefits, arguing the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The board found no departure from employment, considering it a reasonable incident for an outside worker. The court, citing Matter of Relkin v. National Transp. Co., affirmed the decision, concluding the meal was sufficiently related to the time and place of work and the promotion of the employer’s business.

Workers' CompensationOutside SalesmanCourse of EmploymentMealtime InjuryAppellate DivisionAccident Arising Out of EmploymentDeviation from EmploymentWork-Related IncidentEmployer LiabilityAffirmed Decision
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 10,469 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