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

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
Apr 06, 1978

Claim of Berkowitz v. New York State Labor Relations Board

The claimant, a clerk for the New York State Labor Relations Board, sustained an injury on May 4, 1977, after slipping and falling in the World Trade Center Concourse while taking letters to a mailbox. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that this accident occurred within the environs of employment, thereby arising out of and in the course of employment. This decision was supported by substantial evidence upon appeal and was subsequently affirmed.

Employment InjurySlip and Fall AccidentWorkplace EnvironmentBoard Decision ReviewAppellate ConcurrenceMay 1977 AccidentAffirmed RulingLabor RelationsWorld Trade Center IncidentIn Course of Employment
References
0
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 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
Dec 04, 1997

Claim of D'Accordo v. Spare Wheels & Car Shoppe of Sayville

A claimant, an automobile salesperson, was injured in an accident while driving an employer-provided vehicle to complete a sale to his brother-in-law. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment, a decision challenged by the employer and its insurance carrier. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, citing sufficient evidence that the claimant's activity, though off-schedule, was work-related. This was supported by coworker testimony regarding the employer's encouragement of off-site sales and the claimant's history of sales to family members, establishing a factual basis for the Board's resolution that the activity was reasonable and work-related.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentAutomobile SalesWork-Related ActivityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionEmployer LiabilityInsurance CarrierFactual Question
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Hill-Chapman v. Earlybird Delivery Systems, LLC

Gerald Chapman, a dispatcher, collapsed and died at work on December 25, 2011, from a pulmonary embolism of unknown cause. His estate filed a claim for death benefits, which the Workers’ Compensation Board established, applying the Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 presumption that unexplained accidents in the course of employment arise out of such employment. The employer appealed, arguing that an independent medical report by Vinay Das could not determine the cause of death and requested cross-examination of the medical examiner and access to decedent’s medical records. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter for the Board to address the employer's contention regarding the denial of access to medical records, while upholding the Board's application of the Section 21 presumption and denial of cross-examination.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsUnexplained DeathPulmonary Embolism CausationPresumption Against EmployerMedical Evidence AdmissibilityRight to Cross-ExamineMedical Record DiscoveryAppellate Division ReviewRemand for Further ProceedingsEmployment-Related Injury
References
8
Case No. ADJ8741424
Regular
May 19, 2016

CHARLES LAUDERDALE (Dec'd), KATHLEEN LAUDERDALE (Widow) vs. CRISP ENTERPRISES, INC. dba C2 REPROGRAPHICS, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a widow's claim for workers' compensation benefits after her husband's death. The initial ruling denied the claim, finding no injury arising out of employment. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the employer failed to deny the claim within the 90-day period required by Labor Code § 5402(b), thus creating a presumption of compensability. The Board determined the employer's evidence to rebut this presumption was insufficient because the witness testimony used was available and discoverable within the 90-day timeframe. Therefore, the Board found the decedent sustained an injury to his left foot arising out of and in the course of employment.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 5402(b)Presumed CompensableRebuttal of PresumptionReasonable DiligencePercipient WitnessSpecific InjuryLeft Foot
References
0
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 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
Showing 1-10 of 11,948 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