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

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
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

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

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
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. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Thompson v. New York Telephone Co.

A chauffeur's helper sustained a knee injury while descending stairs to exit her employer's premises after changing clothes. She was diagnosed with a torn medial meniscus. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the injury compensable as an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer appealed, arguing the injury was not compensable because the claimant was not engaged in actual labor and the injury lacked a direct employment connection. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing that the course of employment includes a reasonable amount of time for an employee to leave the premises after work. Furthermore, accidents occurring in the course of employment are presumed to arise out of employment, a presumption the employer failed to rebut with substantial evidence.

Knee InjuryCompensable InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentPresumptionAffirmationAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardChauffeur's HelperPremises Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Craig v. Jefferson Auto Painting Co.

The claimant, an automobile sander and polisher, sustained eye injuries when a coemployee threw a chemical solution during an assault. The incident occurred after the claimant refused to participate in a false accusation against a foreman, leading to threats during working hours and the actual assault immediately after work, just outside the employer's premises. The Workers' Compensation Board determined the assault was work-connected and within the reasonable time and space limits of employment, thus finding the resultant disability compensable. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, challenging the applicability of the proximity rule and the determination that the incident occurred in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, relying on the 'continued altercation rule' which allows recovery for work-connected quarrels extending beyond employment limits, and emphasized that an employee remains in the course of employment until a suitable opportunity to leave the workplace is provided.

Workers' CompensationAssaultWork-Connected InjuryEmployment ScopeContinued Altercation RulePremises LiabilityCoemployee MisconductDisability BenefitsAppealJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ8365866
Regular
May 02, 2014

CESAR MARTIN vs. STUDIO CHAMELEON LLC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant's injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The Board found the applicant's stop at a friend's house to retrieve a phone charger benefited the employer by enabling continued communication. Additionally, the auto accident occurred after the applicant left his friend's house and was en route back to the employer's premises on a normal route, thus concluding any deviation. The Board also clarified the legal distinction between "scope of employment" (a tort concept) and "course of employment" (a workers' compensation term of art).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationdeniedcourse of employmentscope of employmentmotor vehicle accidentmaterial deviationemployer's instructionsapplicant's benefitpersonal comfort
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Crutshank v. Gypsum Deck Associates, Inc.

The employer and its insurance carrier appealed a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision from November 30, 1970, which awarded death benefits to the claimant. The Board found the decedent was an outside worker with latitude in his work, the employer supplied and maintained the car, and there was no conclusive evidence of deviation from employment. The accident occurred during snowy, hazardous driving conditions. The Board concluded the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and was not solely due to intoxication. The appellate court affirmed the decision, citing precedents that an unwitnessed accident occurring in the course of employment is presumed to arise out of employment, and noted no conclusive evidence of alcoholic intoxication causing the accident.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsUnwitnessed AccidentIntoxication DefenseCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentOutside WorkerSlippery Roads
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 11,265 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