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 Blain v. Emsig Manufacturing Corp.

On March 29, 1993, the claimant suffered back and neck injuries from a fall at her workplace. She continued working until June 2, 1993, when severe pain prevented her from continuing. At this point, she notified her employer of the work-related injury while submitting a disability benefits request. A formal workers' compensation claim was filed on August 31, 1993, exceeding the statutory 30-day notice period. The Workers’ Compensation Board excused the late notice, determining the claimant informed her employer as soon as the injury's severity was realized. The appellate court affirmed this decision, clarifying that proving prejudice to the employer is not a prerequisite for excusing late notice.

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer NotificationDisability BenefitsBack InjuryNeck InjuryExcuse for Late NoticePrejudiceBoard Decision Affirmed
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1997

In re the Claim of Mustaqur Rahman

The claimant, employed by a temporary agency for six months, resigned alleging co-worker harassment. He admitted not discussing his concerns with the employer prior to resigning. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found he voluntarily left his employment without good cause, noting that continuing work and reassignment options were available had he informed the employer. The Board's decision was affirmed on appeal, reinforcing that co-worker conflicts do not constitute good cause for leaving employment, especially when the employer is not notified beforehand.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary ResignationGood CauseHarassmentEmployer NotificationBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewCo-worker ConflictDisqualificationEmployment Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hope v. Warren County Board of Elections

This case involves an appeal by a workers' compensation carrier regarding the calculation of a claimant's average weekly wage based on concurrent employment. The claimant, injured on November 3, 2009, had employment as a polling inspector and concurrently with a retail store. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board calculated the claimant's average weekly wage based on both employments, totaling $80.69, and directed the carrier to continue awards. The carrier appealed, arguing that awards should only be based on the primary employment wage of $3.56 due to the inability to seek reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for concurrent employment amounts following 2007 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting the statutory language to mean that primary employers are liable for benefits calculated on combined average weekly wages, and the 2007 amendments did not intend to reduce benefits for injured workers.

Concurrent Employment BenefitsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationSpecial Disability Fund ClosureWorkers' Compensation Law § 14(6)Statutory Amendment ImpactEmployer Liability LimitsTemporary Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityAppellate Review of WCABLegislative Purpose Analysis
References
5
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 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
Feb 18, 1972

Claim of McGee v. Allstate Insurance

The claimant's husband, a District Sales Manager for Allstate Insurance Company, died in a car accident on September 30, 1970, after attending a sales meeting and continuing business discussions at bars. Although his home was in Utica, the accident occurred en route from Rome. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found the decedent was an outside worker and in the course of his employment at the time of death, awarding death benefits to the claimant. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the board's decision, ruling that social activities connected with and incidental to an employer’s business are considered part of employment and that the decedent had not deviated from his employment.

Death BenefitsCourse of EmploymentOutside WorkerSales MeetingBusiness DiscussionCar AccidentDeviation from EmploymentAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1992

Claim of Torres v. T A D Technical Services Corp.

The claimant, a laborer, injured his left foot on the job. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was permanently partially disabled, experiencing continuing pain and requiring ongoing medical treatment, thus warranting continuing disability benefits over a schedule loss award. The employer appealed, arguing a denial of due process due to the absence of medical testimony and cross-examination. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the continuing disability award, and no prejudice resulted from the lack of cross-examination as experts agreed on the claimant's condition, only disagreeing on the classification as a schedule loss.

Workers' Compensation AppealPermanent Partial DisabilityContinuing Disability BenefitsSchedule Loss EvaluationMedical EvidenceDue Process RightsCross-ExaminationSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate Court DecisionOccupational Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Houda v. Niagara Frontier Hockey

The Workers' Compensation Board granted employers' requests for reimbursement from injured professional hockey players' schedule loss of use awards, reversing a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision. The employers had continued full salary payments to the players while they were not playing, considering these as payments 'in a like manner as wages' under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The claimants appealed, arguing their salary payments were for services rendered while injured, not compensation. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that denying reimbursement would unjustly provide double benefits to the employees and that the employers did not receive the primary contractual service from the injured players.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementSchedule Loss of UseSalary ContinuationProfessional AthletesHockey PlayersAdvance Payments of CompensationPayments in Like Manner as WagesDouble BenefitsUnjust Enrichment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Milner v. Country Developers, Inc.

The Special Disability Fund appealed decisions by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which imposed liability on the Fund for a claimant's injuries. The Board found that the employer, Country Developers, continued to employ the claimant, a carpenter, with knowledge of his pre-existing permanent physical impairment, triggering liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The claimant suffered a fracture of the nose and a hip dislocation in 1964, having a history of three ruptured disc surgeries and other conditions. The appeal centered on whether the employer had sufficient knowledge of the claimant’s permanent condition. Testimony from the employer’s foreman, Mr. Pahlck, indicated awareness of the claimant's back issues, including wearing a back brace and being favored by co-workers. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, reiterating that employer knowledge is a question of fact for the Board, and its findings, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer LiabilityPre-existing Permanent ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeSubstantial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityFracture of NoseHip DislocationRuptured Discs
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 11,064 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