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 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reid v. Coastal Abrasive & Tool Co.

The case involves an appeal from a decision awarding disability benefits to a claimant. The claimant, an inside worker, suffered injuries after slipping and falling on snow and ice on a public sidewalk adjacent to her employer's premises. The employer, as the sole tenant, was contractually responsible for maintaining the sidewalks and removing snow and ice. The Workmen's Compensation Board found that the employer's dominion over the sidewalk area brought the accident within the scope of employment, thus ensuring the claimant's right to safe entry to the building. The court affirmed the decision, with costs awarded to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallSnow and Ice RemovalEmployer ResponsibilitySafe IngressDisability AwardPublic Sidewalk AccidentCourse of EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
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. 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

Cortijo v. Ilfin Corp.

A decedent, employed as a building superintendent, was found dead from a 12-gauge shotgun wound on his employer's premises during working hours. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the unexplained death, occurring on the employer's property and during working hours, raised a presumption of compensability under section 21 of the Workers' Compensation Law. This presumption led to the conclusion that the death arose out of and in the course of employment, justifying an award of death benefits to the claimant. The Board found that police testimony regarding the decedent's prior illegal activities was insufficient to rebut this statutory presumption. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding them supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPresumption of CompensabilityUnexplained DeathEmployment InjuryOn-Premises DeathStatutory PresumptionRebuttal of PresumptionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Graham v. Life Rollway Corp.

The claimant sustained a leg injury on the employer’s premises and filed for workers’ compensation benefits. The self-insured employer, who had paid disability benefits, controverted the claim. It was later determined that the claimant was entitled to workers’ compensation, and an award was made. A dispute arose regarding the employer's reimbursement for disability benefits paid, specifically whether it should be the full amount or less FICA taxes. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the employer was entitled to full reimbursement. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding the Board's conclusion rational since the full award was effectively paid to the claimant through direct payment and FICA remittances satisfying the claimant's obligations.

Workers' CompensationFICA TaxesDisability Benefits ReimbursementEmployer ReimbursementStatutory InterpretationDue Process ClaimOverpayment RefundAppellate DecisionSocial Security Taxes
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1980

Claim of Vaccaro v. Sperry Rand Corp.

A 54-year-old research department head died after jogging during his lunch hour on his employer's premises. The employer permitted this activity and provided an athletic facility, the Sperry Rand Athletic Club, to its employees, supporting its functions through commissions and allowing its name to be used. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the decedent's death was causally related to and arose out of strenuous exertion during the course of his employment, a finding supported by medical testimony. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the intimate relationship between the employer and the athletic club and the employer's ability to terminate such activities at will.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer PremisesLunch Hour ActivityAthletic FacilityCausationDeath BenefitAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 1984

Claim of Weimer v. Wei-Munch Ltd.

The claimant, employed as a food service director, sustained injuries and his wife was killed in a car accident while driving home from his second job as a restaurant manager. He was traveling to his home, which served as the corporate office for his restaurant business, with business materials in his briefcase. An Administrative Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found the injuries compensable, ruling that his home constituted a second business location. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the accident occurred during an uncompensable commute. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that an accident between work and home is compensable if the home has genuinely become part of the employment premises due to work duties.

Work-related injuryHome officeTraveling employeeDual employmentSpecial errandCourse of employmentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewAccident during commuteCompensable injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lippman v. Public Employment Relations Board

This proceeding involved the Unified Court System (UCS) challenging a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found that UCS violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally issuing an administrative order in December 1997 that amended regulations (22 NYCRR part 108) related to court reporters' fees for selling transcripts to litigants. The court reviewed PERB's findings that the new page-rate guidelines and a mandatory "Minute Agreement Form" constituted an improper practice by altering terms of employment. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the page-rate guidelines actually limited reporters' compensation. Furthermore, while the Agreement Form did alter some aspects of employment, its impact was minimal and outweighed by UCS's broader mission to ensure understandable, uniform, timely, and affordable access to justice. Therefore, the court annulled PERB's determination and granted the petition.

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 10,471 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