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
Feb 02, 2006

Claim of Melo v. Jewish Board of Family & Children's Services, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The claimant, a night shift direct care worker, was assaulted and raped by a stranger in her workplace at the Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, Inc. in 1997. The Board determined that her injury did not arise out of her employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court found no causal link between the claimant's employment and the attack, noting it did not occur while she was performing duties, the building was not identified as her specific workplace, the assailant was not a coworker, and there was no employment-related motivation or increased risk from her work environment.

Assault in workplaceRapeInjury arising out of employmentCourse of employmentCausal relationshipWork environment riskEmployer liabilityWorkers' Compensation Board appealUnidentified assailantOff-duty injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Littles v. New York State Department of Corrections

A claimant was injured in an automobile accident approximately 10 feet from her workplace entrance, a prison. She applied for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the claimant did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was no evidence of a special hazard at the accident location or a close association of the access route with the employer's premises that would make the accident compensable as a risk of employment.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSpecial HazardAccess RoutePublic RoadOff-premises InjuryCommuting AccidentWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
8
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Huggins v. Masterclass Masonry

A bricklayer claimant was injured in a municipal bus shelter across from his worksite while eating lunch. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury compensable, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that lunchtime injuries are generally outside the scope of employment unless the employer maintains control, which was not established. The court also rejected arguments regarding proximity to the worksite, finding no causal relationship or special hazard, and dismissed the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), noting it does not wholly relieve the claimant of the burden of proving the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

Lunch Break InjuryBus Shelter AccidentScope of EmploymentEmployer ControlCausal RelationshipSpecial HazardFortuitous CoincidenceWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Lee

This worker's compensation case concerns Franklin N. Lee, a carpenter employed by Sabine Consolidated, Inc., who sustained severe injuries on June 28, 1975. The injury occurred after his work shift, within his employer's designated parking area on the construction site, while he was attempting to clear a path for his car by moving a company compressor. The defendant, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, appealed a jury verdict that found Lee's injury occurred in the course of his employment, challenging the application of the 'access doctrine.' The 'access doctrine' posits that employment includes a reasonable margin of time and space for an employee to pass to and from work, extending to injuries sustained on premises owned or controlled by the employer or closely related thereto. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that there was sufficient factual evidence to support the jury's finding under the access doctrine.

Worker's CompensationAccess DoctrineCourse of EmploymentEmployer LiabilityPremises InjuryJury VerdictAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationIngress EgressTexas Civil Statute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. Sentry Insurance Co.

This case concerns the apportionment of a workers’ compensation award for permanent total disability between an employer’s insurer and the Second Injury Fund in Tennessee. The employee, Roger Perry, sustained previous non-work-related neck injuries and a work-related leg injury, followed by a subsequent work-related neck injury in May 1993 that rendered him permanently and totally disabled. The central legal question was whether Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-208(a) or (b) should apply for liability apportionment. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's application of section (a), ruling that the employer's insurer is liable for 50% of the award and the Second Injury Fund for the remaining 50%, but clarified that payments from the Second Injury Fund should only commence after the employer's payments are completed.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Total DisabilitySecond Injury FundApportionment of LiabilityPrior InjuriesSubsequent InjuryStatutory ConstructionTennessee Supreme CourtVocational DisabilityMedical Impairment
References
12
Case No. 2-89-133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1990

McCoy v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

Margaret McCoy, an employee, sustained an injury on her employer's premises while attempting to pick up her paycheck before her scheduled shift. She had several alternative methods for receiving her pay. The trial court determined that McCoy was not acting within the course and scope of her employment at the time of the injury. On appeal, McCoy argued that the evidence established as a matter of law that her injury occurred within the course and scope of her employment. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that McCoy's actions were not in furtherance of her employer's business. A dissenting opinion argued that McCoy should have been considered within the course and scope of her employment as a matter of law.

Worker's CompensationCourse and Scope of EmploymentPaycheck CollectionPremises LiabilityEmployer AccommodationAppealAffirmationDissenting OpinionTexas LawSummary Judgment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1983

Claim of Hughes v. New York Telephone Co.

A line foreman, though not on duty, was requested by his employer to check a report of a broken pole. While preparing to use a company car parked in his driveway for this task, he sustained an injury to his mouth after stepping on a rake. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that this injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer appealed, arguing that, as a matter of law, the injury did not arise from employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, applying the 'special errand' exception to the general rule regarding risks of travel to and from work. It concluded that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentOff-Duty WorkEmployee InjuryAppellate ReviewAffirmationOccupational HazardWorkplace Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Konvicka

Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, the insurer of A. O. Smith Corporation, sued to set aside an award granted by the Texas Industrial Accident Board to the legal beneficiaries of John Konvicka. Konvicka, an employee, died from injuries sustained after attempting to start a stalled car in the employer's parking lot and then on a public highway following a heavy rain. The insurance company argued that the injury occurred outside the scope of employment since it was off-premises and after working hours. The court, however, determined that the injury was compensable under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Act, emphasizing that the incident originated on the employer's premises and was incident to employment, aligning with the liberal construction of the statute. Consequently, the court denied the insurer's attempt to set aside the award and affirmed the beneficiaries' entitlement to compensation.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryCommuting HazardParking Lot InjuryTexas LawLiberal ConstructionAccidentFatal Injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cortese v. Rochester Products Division, G.M.C.

This case concerns an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a claimant who developed leg and back pain, culminating in a herniated disc, after a new work assignment involving lifting heavy carburetors. The self-insured employer appealed the Board's findings that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and that her failure to give timely statutory notice was excused. The court affirmed the Board's decisions, asserting that a compensable accident can arise from repetitive trauma leading to a sudden collapse, and the specific onset of severe pain satisfies the suddenness test. Furthermore, the Board properly excused the delayed notice as it neither aggravated the injury nor hindered the defense. Substantial medical evidence supported the causal relationship between the work activities and the injury.

Repetitive TraumaHerniated DiscLaminectomyDelayed Notice ExcusedCausal ConnectionSuddenness TestWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSubstantial EvidenceWork-related InjuryEmployer Liability
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 25,768 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