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 03, 1969

People v. Altman

Paul Altman was charged with violating a Town of Hempstead ordinance prohibiting seaplanes from landing or taking off in the channel system. Altman admitted to two violations in Reynolds Channel. He argued that federal law preempted local governments from regulating airways and seaplane ways, and that the ordinance unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce. The court found that the ordinance was in harmony with federal law and a proper exercise of the Town's police power, noting a strong presumption of constitutionality for legislative enactments. The court found the defendant guilty.

Ordinance violationSeaplane regulationFederal preemptionInterstate commerce clausePolice powerConstitutional lawMunicipal ordinanceAir trafficNavigable waterwaysTown of Hempstead
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1992

Ragin v. Altman

The plaintiff, acting as the receiver for Woodland Nursing Home, initiated an action against Blanche Altman (now deceased) and her son, Stephen Altman, to recover damages for breach of contract, account stated, and quantum meruit related to nursing care services provided. The defendants sought a stay of the action, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction, pending the outcome of a Workers’ Compensation claim filed by Blanche Altman. The Supreme Court initially granted the stay. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the status of the Workers’ Compensation claim was irrelevant to the plaintiff's right to pursue recovery under the admission agreement. Furthermore, the court found that Woodland was not obligated to seek payment directly from Mrs. Altman’s employer under Workers’ Compensation Law and was not authorized to provide medical care to compensation claimants. Consequently, the defendants' motion to stay the action was denied, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with their claim for services.

Breach of ContractAccount StatedQuantum MeruitWorkers' Compensation ClaimNursing HomeAdmission AgreementStay of ActionAppellate ReviewJurisdictionPayment Dispute
References
4
Case No. ADJ9943316 ADJ9558081
Regular
Dec 01, 2017

WING QUAN vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

This case involves competing petitions for reconsideration from lien claimants Joyce Altman Interpreting and Orthomed. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Orthomed's petition, upholding the finding that they failed to meet their burden of proof for reimbursement. However, the WCAB granted Joyce Altman's petition, remanding the issue of sanctions and costs against the defendant for delaying payment of interpreting services. The WCAB affirmed the original finding that Joyce Altman failed to establish the market rate for her services.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantsPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersMedical Provider NetworkOrthomedJoyce Altman InterpretingFrivolous ActionsSanctionsCosts
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Carney v. Regal Dry Cleaners

A front counter supervisor for a dry cleaning business sustained injuries in an automobile accident while on her lunch break. She had offered to pick up lunch for her coworkers, and allegedly her supervisor asked her to pick up lunch for him. While returning to work with both lunches, she was involved in an accident and filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, finding her injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment as her activities did not constitute a 'special errand' for the employer. The appellate court affirmed this decision, noting no evidence that the supervisor affirmatively solicited the lunch purchase, and that the claimant was already planning a personal errand.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentLunch BreakSpecial Errand ExceptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentPersonal ErrandEmployer BenefitSolicitationAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hennings v. Town of Hempstead

Claimant, a parks department laborer, was injured in a motorcycle accident while returning from lunch. He had used his motorcycle to travel to work and then left it to go to lunch in a coworker's car. Upon returning, he crashed his motorcycle on a public road. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed his claim, finding that he was on his lunch hour and not performing any work duties when the accident occurred. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

Workers' CompensationMotorcycle AccidentCourse of EmploymentLunch Break InjuryAffirmed DecisionBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewLaborerParks DepartmentPersonal Commute
References
1
Case No. ADJ7336300
Regular
Feb 19, 2014

EMANUEL AGUILAR vs. BHS CORRUGATED NORTH AMERICA, INC.; THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding of injury AOE/COE for Emanuel Aguilar. The Board found that Aguilar's injury, sustained in a rental car returning from an unpaid lunch break, was not compensable under the "going and coming rule" and its "lunch rule" extension. The WCAB determined that the employer's provision of the rental car to a co-employee, even if for business benefit, did not extend coverage to Aguilar during his personal, off-premises lunch. Commissioner Brass dissented, arguing the injury should be compensable due to employer benefit and the liberal construction of workers' compensation laws.

AOE/COEgoing and coming rulelunch ruleemployer's premisesrental carunpaid lunch breakmotor vehicle accidentspecial mission exceptioncompensabilityPetition for Reconsideration
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Harford v. Widensky's, Inc.

Patricia Harford, a sales clerk, died in an automobile accident in front of her employer's store. The central issue was whether her death occurred during the course of employment, specifically if her lunch break, during which she was allegedly on a coffee errand for her employer, constituted an interruption of employment. The Workers' Compensation Board found the accident compensable, reasoning that the errand and the employer-convenient lunch break maintained her within the scope of employment. The appellate court affirmed, upholding the Board's reliance on a vice-president's statement despite formal evidence rules and finding substantial evidence for the Board's determination that the lunch arrangement did not interrupt employment.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentLunch BreakSpecial ErrandCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawCompensabilityAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ10473584
Regular
Aug 17, 2018

MIGUEL SANTANA vs. MULHOLLAND TENNIS CLUB, INC., SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision regarding interpreter fees owed to Joyce Altman Interpreters, Inc. (Altman) by Mulholland Tennis Club. The WCAB found that Altman's interpreter services were not medical-legal expenses but rather Section 5811 costs, thus not subject to Section 4622 penalties for late payment. However, the WCAB rescinded the ALJ's order and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if sanctions under Section 5813 are warranted for the defendant's admitted failure to pay within the 60-day timeframe, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove excusable neglect.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMiguel SantanaMulholland Tennis ClubSecurity National Insurance CompanyAmTrustJoyce Altman InterpretersPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderWCJpenalties
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 1975

Claim of Bennerson v. Checker Garage Service Corp.

Claimant, a utility helper, was injured during his lunch hour while driving an employer's taxicab for personal use in New York City. The employer appealed the Workmen’s Compensation Board's finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant was on his lunch hour, performing no duties for the employer, and therefore the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The court dismissed the claim, stating that where the claimant ate was indifferent to the employer, and the use of the employer's vehicle for personal lunch did not establish a connection to employment. A dissenting opinion argued that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of transportation being furnished by the employer.

References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 1978

Claim of Bender v. Long Island Lighting Co.

A claimant sustained an arm injury while playing football with coemployees during lunch hour on the employer's parking lot. The record indicated that employees, including supervisory personnel, frequently engaged in athletic activities on the employer's premises, and these activities were not prohibited. Employees remaining on premises for lunch were not required to punch out and were subject to call. The Workers' Compensation Board found that the employer was aware of these activities and that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationLunch Break InjuryRecreational Activity InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer KnowledgeSupervisory ParticipationParking Lot InjuryFootball InjuryAccidental InjuryBoard Decision
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 88 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