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
Jul 19, 1984

Claim of Bennett v. G. O. Dairies, Inc.

A claimant was injured by gunshots after parking her car across the street from her workplace, where she regularly drove the store manager. She testified that she was paid from 7:00 a.m., and her transportation services for the manager were known and beneficial to the employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment, citing the presumption under Workers’ Compensation Law Section 21(1). The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing she had not commenced employment duties or reached the premises. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample basis to conclude her activities were job-related and that the presumption was not rebutted.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentSpecial Errand ExceptionPresumption of CausationArising Out Of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentInjury en routeShooting IncidentEmployer BenefitPaid Travel Time
References
6
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. 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

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
Jul 27, 1995

Claim of Wint v. Hotel Waldorf Astoria

The claimant, employed by Hotel Waldorf Astoria, was involved in an altercation in January 1990 and subsequently terminated. Despite termination, payroll records were maintained, and the claimant remained in employment status as a union delegate until a grievance hearing in February 1990. On January 26, 1990, the claimant returned to the Hotel to pick up her paycheck and was injured after slipping and falling. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded this decision. A new WCLJ found the injury occurred in the course of employment, which the Board affirmed. The Hotel appealed this decision, contending that no employer-employee relationship existed at the time of the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the determination that the claimant was an employee.

Workers' CompensationEmployment StatusAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer-Employee RelationshipUnion DelegateCollective Bargaining AgreementPaycheck CollectionTermination DisputeSubstantial Evidence
References
7
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
Sep 01, 2005

Claim of Gutierrez v. Courtyard by Marriott

The claimant's daughter, a guest services agent at the Courtyard by Marriott hotel, was found murdered in an employee restroom while on duty. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge granted the claimant's application for death benefits, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed this decision. The court affirmed, holding that the death occurred during the course of employment and arose out of employment, citing the boyfriend's jealousy over the decedent's interactions with hotel customers as the necessary nexus. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying an adjournment pending a criminal trial or in excluding unreliable hearsay evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsArising out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentWorkplace MurderPersonal AnimosityStatutory PresumptionHearsay Evidence AdmissibilityAdjournment DiscretionWorkers’ Compensation Board Appeal
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McRae v. Eagan Real Estate

A real estate salesperson, primarily working from her home office, sustained a back injury when she fell down stairs at her residence. The incident occurred after a business meeting with a carpet installer for her employer and just before she was to leave to perform another work-related task (removing a lockbox). A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury compensable, a decision upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that the claimant's home had become a place of employment, and her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment.

Real Estate SalespersonWork From HomeHome Office InjuryCourse of EmploymentCompensable InjuryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardFallsBack InjuryBusiness Meeting
References
4
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 27, 2004

Mercado v. Schenectady City School District

Claimant, an elementary school employee in Schenectady County, sustained injuries to her right arm and shoulder after slipping on an icy sidewalk on December 17, 2002, while walking to work. The incident occurred approximately 200 feet from the elementary school entrance, on a sidewalk in front of an adjacent middle school, which the employer maintained and considered part of its property. The Workers' Compensation Board found the injury occurred on the employer's premises and arose out of and in the course of her employment, sustaining the claim. The employer appealed, arguing the injury was not on their premises. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's factual finding that the claimant fell within the precincts of her employment, noting that being on the employer's premises going to or coming from work is generally considered an incident of employment.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilityCourse of EmploymentAccidental InjuryIcy SidewalkSchenectady CountyAppellate DivisionEmployer ControlBoard DecisionSlip and Fall
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 18,782 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