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 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
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 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

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
Dec 04, 1997

Claim of D'Accordo v. Spare Wheels & Car Shoppe of Sayville

A claimant, an automobile salesperson, was injured in an accident while driving an employer-provided vehicle to complete a sale to his brother-in-law. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment, a decision challenged by the employer and its insurance carrier. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, citing sufficient evidence that the claimant's activity, though off-schedule, was work-related. This was supported by coworker testimony regarding the employer's encouragement of off-site sales and the claimant's history of sales to family members, establishing a factual basis for the Board's resolution that the activity was reasonable and work-related.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentAutomobile SalesWork-Related ActivityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionEmployer LiabilityInsurance CarrierFactual Question
References
3
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
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 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
Showing 1-10 of 18,315 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