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 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

Claim of Baker v. E.J. Construction Group, Inc.

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed March 26, 2004, which found he failed to provide his employer with timely notice of a January 14, 2003, work-related injury. The claimant slipped on ice and injured his hip and lower back but did not report the incident until March 2003. The Board reversed an initial award of benefits, concluding the claimant's delay in notice prejudiced the employer by preventing an investigation into the accident and injuries before a subsequent March 2003 incident. Citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 18, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that substantial evidence supported the finding of employer prejudice.

Timely NoticeEmployer PrejudiceWork-Related InjuryAccident ReportBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewInjury SeverityFailure to Investigate
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Albano v. Waldbaum's

In 1996, the claimant suffered a compensable injury to his right shoulder and neck. Thirteen years later, in January 2009, he claimed another work-related injury to his neck, right hand, and left leg. The Workers’ Compensation Board established a work-related neck injury from the 2009 incident and denied the employer's application for reconsideration, leading to this appeal. The employer argued that its request to cross-examine the claimant’s physicians was wrongly denied because their initial reports lacked reference to the 2009 accident. The court, however, found that this issue was thoroughly addressed at the hearing, and the physicians' reports, despite the omission, were consistent with the claimant's testimony. Crucially, experts, including the employer's own orthopedic surgeon, concluded that the injuries were causally related to the January 2009 incident. Consequently, the Board's decision to deny the cross-examination request was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryNeck InjuryRight Hand InjuryLeft Leg InjuryMedical ReportsCross-ExaminationCausationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesAppellate Division
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jennette v. Canon

Claimant, a customer service representative, was instructed by her employer to go home and change into more appropriate attire due to a company dress code violation, despite having worn the same suit previously without incident. While returning home to change, she was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained injuries. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her accidental injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, considering her trip a "special errand" for the employer. This decision was affirmed by the court.

Dress CodeSpecial ErrandMotor Vehicle AccidentAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentWorkers' CompensationAppeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Haufler v. Cambrook Fabrics Co.

An outside salesman in New York City was injured when he tripped entering a cafeteria for lunch while on his way to a client. The employer and carrier appealed a decision awarding benefits, arguing the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The board found no departure from employment, considering it a reasonable incident for an outside worker. The court, citing Matter of Relkin v. National Transp. Co., affirmed the decision, concluding the meal was sufficiently related to the time and place of work and the promotion of the employer’s business.

Workers' CompensationOutside SalesmanCourse of EmploymentMealtime InjuryAppellate DivisionAccident Arising Out of EmploymentDeviation from EmploymentWork-Related IncidentEmployer LiabilityAffirmed Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anowai v. Holiday Inn

Claimant, a security officer, was struck on the head by falling facade debris from an adjacent building shortly after completing his shift at a Manhattan hotel. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, deeming it within the area of egress. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the accident did not occur as an incident or risk of employment because it happened on a public street, in front of a separate building, and involved a hazard outside the employer's control. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to overturn its factual findings regarding the nexus between the accident and the claimant's employment. The court reiterated that while risks near the employment situs can merge with employment risks, the Board's discretionary determination of such risks should be respected.

Accidental InjuryScope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleEgress and IngressStreet RiskPublic SidewalkEmployer ControlFactual FindingsAppellate ReviewSecurity Officer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamsbridge Manor Nursing Home v. Local 144 Division of 1199, National Health & Human Services Employers Union

Plaintiff Williamsbridge Manor Nursing Home sought to permanently enjoin an arbitration hearing related to the suspension of its employee, Cynthia Sullivan. The defendant, New York’s Health & Human Services Employers Union 1199/SEIU, AFL-CIO, opposed this motion and cross-moved for summary judgment and/or dismissal. The core issue revolved around whether an obligation to arbitrate survived the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in October 1997, given that the incident leading to Sullivan's suspension occurred in December 1998. The court determined that the dispute did not arise under the expired CBA, nor was there an implied-in-fact agreement to arbitrate post-expiration disputes, as the plaintiff's conduct was inconsistent with implied consent. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff's petition was not moot, despite the arbitration having already taken place, because the court retains power to act until an arbitration award is confirmed. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to permanently enjoin the arbitration was granted, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss for mootness was denied.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCBA ExpirationImplied-in-fact ContractFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActPermanent InjunctionMootnessEmployee SuspensionJudicial Determination
References
25
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
Jan 13, 2005

Claim of Dean v. Bill Rapp Pontiac, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision affirming that the death of claimant’s 38-year-old husband was causally related to his employment, thereby awarding death benefits. The decedent, an auto mechanic, collapsed and died on his first day of work after becoming distressed when a toolbox fell and damaged a new car. The employer presented medical evidence attributing death to a coronary artery thrombosis unrelated to employment, while the claimant's consultant argued the incident precipitated his demise. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and Board found in favor of the claimant, determining the death was work-related. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the conflicting medical evidence and deferring to the Board’s resolution of such factual issues.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal RelationshipEmployment-Related DeathCoronary Artery ThrombosisMyocardial InfarctionMedical EvidencePresumption of CausationStressful EventBoard Decision Affirmed
References
7
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 10,770 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