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

Kwitek v. United States Postal Service

Edward Kwitek, a driver for Midwest Transport, Inc., sued the United States Postal Service (USPS) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained while loading mail at a post office, alleging negligence by USPS employees. The government moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that Kwitek was an independent contractor and his injury resulted from a discretionary function, thereby making the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity inapplicable. The court denied the government's motion. It ruled that the independent contractor exception did not apply because the alleged negligence was on the part of USPS employees failing to perform their regular duties. Furthermore, the discretionary function exception was also inapplicable, as the alleged conduct was not policy-driven but rather a failure to follow established protocol. The case was then referred for a settlement conference.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionIndependent Contractor ExceptionDiscretionary Function ExceptionNegligenceUnited States Postal ServicePersonal InjuryLoading Dock InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
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

Caldaro v. Float No. 187

The libelant, employed as a stowman on Float No. 187, was injured due to the vessel's unseaworthy condition and subsequently filed a libel. This action follows a previous case where the libelant sued his employer, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, for the same injuries. In that prior action, the complaint was dismissed, with Judge J. Edward Lumbard ruling that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. Citing a similar precedent, the court in the present case sustained the respondent's exceptions to the libel, leading to its dismissal.

Seaman InjuryUnseaworthinessLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyAdmiralty LawMaritime LawLibelExceptionsCase DismissalFederal District Court
References
4
Case No. 02 Civ. 5571(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses defendants' motion for partial summary judgment concerning plaintiffs' standing in a securities litigation against Vivendi Universal S.A., Jean-Marie Messier, and Guillaume Hannezo. The central issue is whether various investment management companies, suing on behalf of investment funds and their investors, possess constitutional standing under the "Huff exception." The court examines the legal structures of numerous foreign investment vehicles from Germany, Luxembourg, France, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, and Denmark. It concludes that most management companies for German, Luxembourgian FCPs, French FCPs, Belgian FCPs, Swedish, and Austrian funds satisfy the Huff exception, denying summary judgment against them. However, the court grants summary judgment against Danish investment companies, finding their relationship with the Associations does not meet the exception's requirements. The opinion also rules that post-filing assignments or substitutions under Rule 17 FRCP can cure standing defects, allowing plaintiffs time to amend their complaints.

Securities LitigationStandingSummary JudgmentInvestment FundsManagement CompaniesArticle III StandingHuff ExceptionRule 17 FRCPClass ActionVivendi Universal
References
18
Case No. ADJ7304028
Regular
Jan 16, 2013

ROBERT DECOURCEY, JR. vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior finding of injury for Robert Decourcey, Jr. This decision follows a Court of Appeal ruling that a shift swap did not constitute a "special mission" exception to the going and coming rule. Therefore, Decourcey's injury sustained during his commute after the shift exchange was not deemed industrial. The applicant is awarded nothing for his claim except for potential reimbursement of medical-legal costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After Remittiturgoing and coming rulespecial mission exceptionspecial risk exceptionshift swapcorrectional officerindustrial injuryCourt of AppealPetition for Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ11265619
Regular
Jun 03, 2019

KIMBERLEE ZEIGLER-BAINBRIDGE vs. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, ESIS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the previous decision that barred her claim under the "going and coming rule." The Board found that the initial hearing and decision did not adequately develop evidence regarding other potential exceptions to the rule, particularly those related to the employer's requirement for the employee to furnish transportation. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to fully explore these exceptions and ensure due process for the applicant.

Going and coming ruleZenithGriffinPetition for ReconsiderationWCJapplicantdefendantemploymentcommutecompensation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bobinis v. State Insurance Fund

The claimant, a senior hearing representative for the State Insurance Fund, sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained when struck by a car in a shopping center parking lot after leaving work. The incident occurred after work hours when the claimant stopped to purchase a pen for professional use. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, ruling that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant did not meet the criteria for the "outside employee," "home office," or "special errand" exceptions to the general "going and coming" rule. The court further noted the employer provided pens, negating the "special errand" argument, and there was insufficient proof for the "home office" exception.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Errand ExceptionHome Office ExceptionOutside Employee ExceptionPersonal InjuryParking Lot AccidentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. 8 N.Y.3d 1007
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2007

MATTER OF GREENE COUNTY DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. Ward

Dawn Ward adopted Jeffrey, a special needs child with severe behavioral and developmental issues, and received a monthly adoption subsidy. When Jeffrey's behavior escalated, posing safety risks, Ms. Ward attempted a temporary relinquishment of parental rights to the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). GCDSS, however, only allowed a permanent surrender, which Ms. Ward accepted. Subsequently, GCDSS initiated a petition for child support against Ms. Ward, who challenged the obligation on grounds of statutory exception and equitable estoppel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that as an adoptive parent, Ms. Ward retained the financial support obligation, and the specific statutory exception for unwed biological mothers did not apply to her. The court also highlighted GCDSS's failure to provide Ms. Ward with required notifications and access to support services, although these omissions did not alter the child support ruling in this case.

Adoption LawChild Support ObligationParental RightsSpecial Needs ChildrenSocial Services LawEquitable EstoppelNew York Court of AppealsFamily LawChild WelfareVoluntary Surrender
References
4
Case No. ADJ6655702
Regular
Mar 18, 2010

GERICK CATUGDA vs. WINKLEBLACK CONSTRUCTION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY c/o APPLIED RISK SERVICES

This case concerns whether the "going and coming rule" bars applicant's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained during his commute. The defendant argued the rule applied, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied their petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's finding that the applicant's employment required him to have transportation for multiple job sites, creating an exception to the rule. This decision aligns with established precedent, where transportation necessity for the employer's benefit removes the commute from the rule's exclusion.

Going and coming ruleindustrial injuryconstruction laborerhead injurybrain injurypsyche injuryspine injuryribs injurypelvis injuryarms injury
References
9
Case No. 533860
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Quinton Waters

Quinton Waters, a station agent, was injured in a bicycle accident while traveling to an overtime assignment. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially deemed the claim compensable under the 'special errand' exception. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, ruling that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment and did not fall under the 'outside employee' exception. The Appellate Division found that the Board failed to address the 'special errand' exception, which was the WCLJ's original basis for awarding benefits. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the applicability of the special errand exception.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionOutside Employee ExceptionScope of EmploymentTravel to Work InjuryOvertime AssignmentBicycle AccidentTraumatic Brain InjuryBoard ReversalAppellate Division
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 7,128 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