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
Dec 26, 2003

Claim of Gabriele v. Educational Bus Transportation, Inc.

The claimant in this case sought workers' compensation benefits after being struck by an automobile during an unpaid lunch break. The incident occurred while he was crossing a public street, having just cashed his paycheck and intending to proceed to a deli. Although a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits under a 'dual purpose errand' theory, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling that the injury happened outside the scope of his employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's activities ceased to be work-related and became personal once he left the bank, thus making neither the dual purpose nor special errand exceptions applicable.

Workers' CompensationLunch Break InjuryDual Purpose ErrandScope of EmploymentPersonal ErrandOff-Premises InjuryAccidental InjuryBoard DecisionJudicial ReviewNew York Law
References
7
Case No. ADJ7269472
Regular
Mar 20, 2012

SHARON EWEGBEMI vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury in the course of employment. The applicant argued exceptions to the going-and-coming rule, including special mission, dual purpose, special risk, and required vehicle exceptions. Reconsideration was granted because crucial hearing minutes and summary of evidence were missing from the record, and the original WCJ was unavailable. This prevents the Board from issuing a just decision and necessitates further review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Risk ExceptionRequired Vehicle ExceptionCourse of EmploymentSidewalk InjuryConstructive PremisesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Slack v. Livingston-Wyoming ARC, Inc.

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that denied death benefits to her decedent, an assistant transportation manager for Livingston-Wyoming ARC, Inc., who died in a car accident while driving an employer's minivan home. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim based on the decedent's intoxication, a finding made after an abuse of discretion in granting four adjournments to the carrier. The Board affirmed, erroneously relying on the "special errand" exception. The Appellate Court reversed, ruling that the numerous adjournments constituted an abuse of discretion and that the "dual purpose" exception applied, meaning the death arose out of and in the course of employment, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse of EmploymentSpecial Errand ExceptionDual Purpose ExceptionAbuse of DiscretionAdjournmentsBlood Alcohol ContentAppellate ReviewRemand
References
4
Case No. ADJ10761099
Regular
Apr 06, 2020

TANYA WARD vs. SARTI ENTERPRISES, LLC, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant injured by a car while investigating a disturbance on employer property after her shift. The defendant argued the injury was not compensable due to the "going and coming rule," asserting the applicant was not acting within the scope of employment. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the injury industrial. The Board reasoned that the applicant's investigation conferred a direct benefit to the employer, fitting the "dual purpose" exception to the going and coming rule.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryFront Desk ManagerRight ShoulderRight ElbowUpper ExtremitiesGoing and Coming RuleDual Purpose ExceptionIndustrial CausationEmployer Benefit
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 1985

Claim of Broich v. New York State Union College of Optometry

The claimant, a senior chemist at the New York State Union College of Optometry, was injured at a Long Island Railroad terminal while commuting home. He was carrying materials for an upcoming lecture, an extra work assignment. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant’s injury was sustained in the course of employment, as the department chairman was aware of his intent to work at home. The court reversed this decision, holding that the injury did not fall under the "special errand" or "dual purpose" exceptions to the "going and coming" rule. The court found no evidence that the employer directed the claimant to work at home or that the commute was occasioned by the employer's work, thus deeming the travel personal.

Workers' CompensationGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Errand ExceptionDual Purpose DoctrineCourse of EmploymentCommuting InjuryOff-premises workPersonal ConvenienceWork-related injuryAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lomascolo v. OTTO OLDSMOBILE-CADILLAC. INC.

This case involves a defendant's motion for a protective order to preclude the plaintiff from using two documents at trial, alleging they were not disclosed previously. The plaintiff, who alleges sexual harassment and a hostile work environment under Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law, argued that the documents were solely for impeachment purposes and thus excluded from mandatory disclosure. The court analyzed whether the documents had a dual purpose (impeachment and substantive evidence) and reviewed circuit precedents, ultimately declining to completely preclude their use. Instead, the court applied judicial estoppel, ruling that the documents, which the plaintiff claimed were for impeachment to avoid sanctions, could only be used for impeachment purposes at trial.

Discovery DisputeProtective Order MotionEvidence PreclusionImpeachment UseSubstantive EvidenceRule 26(a) DisclosureRule 37(c)(1) SanctionsJudicial EstoppelSexual Harassment ClaimHostile Work Environment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pollock

This case concerns a joint motion for declaratory judgment filed by Jerome Pollock, Jr. Stone Artist, Inc., a Chapter 11 debtor, and the New York State Department of Labor (DOL). Stone Artist contended that a DOL Order to Comply, issued due to alleged unpaid overtime wages, violated the automatic stay in bankruptcy. The DOL argued its action was permissible under the police and regulatory powers exception of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). The court analyzed the applicability of the police powers exception using both the pecuniary purpose and public policy tests. It concluded that the DOL's enforcement action to fix damages for labor law violations satisfied both tests, and an explicit demand for injunctive relief was not required. Consequently, the court ruled that the DOL's issuance of the Order to Comply was properly excepted from the automatic stay.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayPolice Powers ExceptionDeclaratory JudgmentLabor LawOvertime WagesGovernmental EnforcementPecuniary TestPublic Policy TestNew York Labor Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re McLean Industries, Inc.

This case concerns U.S. Lines, Inc. (now Janus Industries), along with Mclean Industries, Inc. and First Colony Farms, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), and the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee (collectively, the "Movants"). They filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1986 and had a plan of reorganization confirmed in 1989, which relied on the preservation of net operating losses (NOLs). After the IRS announced proposed regulations in 1990 that could challenge the use of NOLs if a plan's principal purpose was tax evasion, the Movants sought a court order declaring that tax evasion was not the principal purpose of their plan. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) opposed, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the applicability of the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court denied the Movants' motion, holding that under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(d), only a governmental unit can initiate a tax avoidance motion, and the issue of tax liability based on proposed regulations was not a concrete controversy.

BankruptcyChapter 11Tax AvoidanceNet Operating Losses (NOLs)IRS RegulationsPlan ConfirmationPost-Confirmation MotionDeclaratory Judgment ActSubject Matter JurisdictionGovernmental Unit
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wright v. General Electric Co.

The claimant appealed decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board concerning the death of her husband, an employee of General Electric Company, who died in an automobile accident during a trip with both business and personal purposes. The Board found the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, awarding death benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence and precedent that a dual-purpose trip does not negate an employment connection. The court also referenced Workers’ Compensation Law, § 118, noting corroborating testimony and permission for travel.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentBusiness TravelPersonal TravelDeath BenefitsEmployment ScopeAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDual Purpose RuleInjury during Employment
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,425 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