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. 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. 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 17, 1997

Claim of Coningsby v. New York State Department of Corrections

Claimant, a correction officer in Cayuga County, sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while driving to work after purchasing lunch. Despite being in uniform and near his workplace, he was not reimbursed for commute time, nor was he required to travel in his personal vehicle or wear his uniform while commuting. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied benefits, ruling the accident did not occur in the course of his employment. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding an insufficient connection between the accident and claimant's work, rejecting arguments of a special errand or dual purpose given the general rule that commuting accidents are not compensable.

Workers' CompensationCommuting AccidentCourse of EmploymentSpecial ErrandDual PurposeCorrection OfficerDenied BenefitsAffirmed DecisionNew York LawAppellate Division
References
5
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
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 1996

In Re Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc.

Stuart L. Kreisler, the debtor's former chief executive officer, moved to have his claim against Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc. (RLW) estimated for voting purposes in RLW's plan of reorganization. Kreisler argued most of his claim, arising from postpetition termination, was an administrative expense, with a smaller unsecured claim. The debtor, RLW, denied any claim. Chief Judge Tina L. Brozman conducted an evidentiary hearing to estimate the claim due to time constraints before the confirmation hearing. The court determined that Kreisler's severance claim would likely be allowed as a postpetition quantum meruit administrative expense, estimating his prepetition unsecured claim related to unpaid bonus at $279,000, and the severance portion of his prepetition claim at zero. The ruling also addressed disputes concerning EBIT calculation for bonus determination and the allocation of the bonus between pre- and post-petition periods.

BankruptcyClaim EstimationSeverance PayAdministrative ExpenseQuantum MeruitEmployment AgreementDebtor ReorganizationPostpetition ClaimPrepetition ClaimBonus Calculation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Neary v. North Salem Central School District

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that a claimant's mathematics/computer science teaching and drivers' education teaching were dual and dissimilar employments. This ruling prevented his continued earnings from the former from offsetting his average weekly wage computation after a pulmonary embolism disabled him from drivers' education. The employer appealed, arguing against the Board's finding. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the drivers' education position was distinct, separately compensated, and the sole cause of the claimant's occupational disease, thus justifying the dual employment classification.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDual EmploymentDissimilar EmploymentAverage Weekly WageWage OffsetPulmonary EmbolismTeacherDrivers' EducationDisability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 1990

Claim of Campbell v. McMillan Book Co.

This case involves an appeal from an amended decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had previously ruled that the discharge of the claimant’s decedent was not in retaliation for filing a compensation claim. The appellate court found that the claimant failed to meet the burden of proving that the decedent’s discharge was retaliatory. The Workers’ Compensation Board’s conclusion that the decedent was discharged for a valid business purpose, specifically for failing to timely file a required form despite warnings and extensions, was supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the determination that the employment termination was not retaliatory for filing disability benefits was upheld.

Retaliatory DischargeDisability ClaimEmployment TerminationTimely Filing RequirementBusiness JustificationEvidentiary SupportAppellate ReviewClaim DenialWorkplace Policies
References
2
Case No. ADJ9297080
Regular
Aug 17, 2015

MARK VILLANUEVA vs. FOLSOM LAKE KIA, PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued that the dual purpose rule didn't apply and questioned the applicant's credibility regarding whether he was working for the employer or on his own car. The Board found the defendant's petition was timely filed. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning and denied reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFolsom Lake KiaPublic Service Mutual Insurance CompanyCorvel CorporationFindings and AwardDual Purpose RuleCredible WitnessPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessMail Service
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 7,206 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