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. 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
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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. 110 Sand Co.

The case involves an injured truck driver, originally employed by Horan Sand & Gravel, who was assigned to work at 110 Sand Company's site. After sustaining injuries on the job, he accepted workers' compensation benefits from Horan. Subsequently, he and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against 110 Sand. 110 Sand moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was its 'special employee' and thus, the acceptance of workers' compensation benefits from Horan barred the lawsuit against them. The Supreme Court granted this motion, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the evidence supported the finding of a special employment relationship, and under Workers' Compensation Law, an injured worker who accepts benefits from their general employer is precluded from suing their special employer for the same injuries.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNew York LawEmployer LiabilityDerived Claim
References
10
Case No. ADJ13090134
Regular
Aug 14, 2025

OLIVIA RAMIREZ vs. ISIDRO A. MEJIA, ZINDER JANITORIAL CO., UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, BOURBON PUB/PARADIES LAGARDERE, SENTRY INSURANCE

Applicant Olivia Ramirez sustained an injury to her knee and ankle on November 17, 2019, while employed by Isidro A. Mejia and Zinder Janitorial Co., who were uninsured for workers' compensation. The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) successfully joined Paradies Lagardere as a co-defendant, alleging joint employer status. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found Paradies to be a joint employer in Findings of Fact issued on May 15, 2025. Paradies sought reconsideration, disputing the joint employer finding and the injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the UEBTF's answer, and the WCJ's report, ultimately granting reconsideration but deferring a final decision on the merits, indicating further review of the record and applicable law is necessary. The decision also clarified that Labor Code sections 2775 and 2776, related to employee classification, do not apply retroactively to the date of injury in this case.

Joint employerUninsured employersParadies LagardereZinder JanitorialIsidro MejiaWCJPetition for ReconsiderationAOE/COELabor Code section 5909EAMS
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Thompson v. New York Telephone Co.

A chauffeur's helper sustained a knee injury while descending stairs to exit her employer's premises after changing clothes. She was diagnosed with a torn medial meniscus. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the injury compensable as an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer appealed, arguing the injury was not compensable because the claimant was not engaged in actual labor and the injury lacked a direct employment connection. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing that the course of employment includes a reasonable amount of time for an employee to leave the premises after work. Furthermore, accidents occurring in the course of employment are presumed to arise out of employment, a presumption the employer failed to rebut with substantial evidence.

Knee InjuryCompensable InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentPresumptionAffirmationAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardChauffeur's HelperPremises Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Devlin v. Edward Petry & Co.

Joseph Devlin, an outside worker selling radio time and acting as a liaison, died from traumatic injuries after leaving a business meeting with a client. His body was discovered on New York Central tracks, and an autopsy revealed 0.15% alcohol in his brain. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found that Devlin was an outside worker, applying presumptions under Section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and concluded that his death was causally related to accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing that Devlin's employment ended at Grand Central Station. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence to classify Devlin as an 'outside' worker, and ruled that his employment continued until he reached home, finding no required deviation from employment.

Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawOutside Worker StatusCourse of EmploymentCausal RelationshipWork-Related DeathAlcohol Content in AutopsyAppellate Review of Board DecisionEmployer ResponsibilityInsurance Carrier Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Siliverdis v. Sea Breeze Services Corp.

The claimant, a carpenter, alleged a work-related injury on June 27, 2007, when he was struck by a forklift, sustaining injuries to his neck, back, and left knee. He sought workers' compensation benefits, but the employer and its carrier disputed the claim. Initially, a workers' compensation law judge ruled in favor of the claimant for a work-related back injury. However, the Workers' Compensation Board subsequently reversed this decision, finding the claimant was not present at the work site on the alleged accident date and thus denied the benefits claim. The Board also denied the claimant's request for a full Board review. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the injuries did not arise out of employment and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying full Board review.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryForklift AccidentCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceBoard ReviewAccident DateWork Site PresenceDenial of BenefitsAppellate Review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 18,272 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