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. ADJ9942537
Regular
Dec 09, 2018

ANGELO RIOS vs. RUSHER AIR CONDITIONING, INSURANCE CO OF THE WEST SAN DIEGO

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained during his unpaid lunch break. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the prior decision that denied the claim. The Board found that the applicant's injury did not fall under the "going and coming" rule due to evidence that he was performing work-related tasks during his break, including taking work calls and researching for a bid. Furthermore, the Board determined the injury likely occurred after the unpaid lunch period concluded, extending into a paid break.

Going and coming ruledual purpose exceptioncourse of employmentscope of employmentAOE/COEpersonal comfort doctrinepaid breaksunpaid lunch breakassaultthird-party assault
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Harford v. Widensky's, Inc.

Patricia Harford, a sales clerk, died in an automobile accident in front of her employer's store. The central issue was whether her death occurred during the course of employment, specifically if her lunch break, during which she was allegedly on a coffee errand for her employer, constituted an interruption of employment. The Workers' Compensation Board found the accident compensable, reasoning that the errand and the employer-convenient lunch break maintained her within the scope of employment. The appellate court affirmed, upholding the Board's reliance on a vice-president's statement despite formal evidence rules and finding substantial evidence for the Board's determination that the lunch arrangement did not interrupt employment.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentLunch BreakSpecial ErrandCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawCompensabilityAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCormick v. Aabakus Inc.

Donald McCormick, surviving spouse of Deborah Elaine McCormick, appealed the trial court's decision granting a directed verdict for Aab-akus Incorporated in a workers' compensation claim. Deborah died after choking on food during an unpaid lunch break on employer premises. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed the trial court, concluding a directed verdict was inappropriate as injuries on employer premises during breaks are generally compensable. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Panel's findings, reiterating that employee negligence is not a valid defense in such claims and remanded the case for further proceedings, consistent with the principle that lunch breaks on employer premises are part of the employment course.

Workers' CompensationLunch BreakWorkplace InjuryEmployment PremisesDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewTennessee LawRemandCompensabilityCausation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drew v. Tappan Co.

The employee, Jack Drew, sustained an injury on the Tappan Company's property while walking to his car during a lunch break to retrieve his meal. The company's parking was inadequate, leading employees to park on a nearby gravel road and use a worn path across company land. The trial court ruled that Drew's injury was compensable under worker's compensation, a decision which the employer and its insurance carrier appealed. The appellants argued that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, citing precedents related to injuries sustained en route to or from work. However, the Supreme Court distinguished these cases, categorizing Drew's situation as an "on premises-lunch break" injury, which is typically compensable when occurring on the employer's premises during a designated break period. Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient material evidence to support the compensability of the injury.

worker's compensationpremises liabilitylunch break injuryscope of employmentarising out of employmentcourse of employmentcompensabilityTennessee lawworkplace injuryappeal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2000

Stein v. Beaver Concrete Breaking Co.

Stuart Stein appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to Beaver Concrete Breaking Co., Inc., dismissing his personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing that a person can have both a general and special employer for Workers' Compensation Law purposes. Since Stein received workers' compensation benefits from his special employer, JAB Construction, Inc., and Beaver was determined to be his general employer, Beaver was shielded from the lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, and 29 [6].

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTort LawNew York Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Carney v. Regal Dry Cleaners

A front counter supervisor for a dry cleaning business sustained injuries in an automobile accident while on her lunch break. She had offered to pick up lunch for her coworkers, and allegedly her supervisor asked her to pick up lunch for him. While returning to work with both lunches, she was involved in an accident and filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, finding her injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment as her activities did not constitute a 'special errand' for the employer. The appellate court affirmed this decision, noting no evidence that the supervisor affirmatively solicited the lunch purchase, and that the claimant was already planning a personal errand.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentLunch BreakSpecial Errand ExceptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentPersonal ErrandEmployer BenefitSolicitationAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wellington v. John Morrell & Co.

The plaintiff, Wellington, a butcher for John Morrell Meat Packing Company, sustained a knee injury on January 16, 1979, while on the company premises during his lunch break. He slipped on a brick placed in a puddle near an exit from the lunchroom, an area commonly used by employees with the employer's knowledge. The trial court initially dismissed his worker's compensation claim, ruling that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, citing similar cases where injuries sustained on employer premises during lunch breaks were deemed compensable, and remanded the case for a new trial.

Worker's CompensationOn-Premises AccidentLunch Break InjuryScope of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentAppellate ReversalRemand for New TrialEmployer Premises LiabilityEmployee Injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ10419162
Regular
Jul 20, 2018

RONALD VICTOR vs. CITY OF PASADENA, ADMINSURE, INC.

This case involves an applicant claiming injury to multiple body parts resulting from a motor vehicle accident. The defendant contested the claim, arguing the accident occurred during a non-compensable lunch break and that a specific medical expert's opinion negated injury to the applicant's left ankle. The Board affirmed the original Findings and Order, ruling that the defendant waived the lunch break defense by not rejecting the claim within 90 days and that the medical expert's testimony was not substantial evidence on the AOE/COE issue. The Board found sufficient medical evidence and applicant testimony to support the left ankle injury as compensable.

AOE/COELabor Code section 5402presumption of compensability90-day rulelunch hour defensetrier of factsubstantial evidencecomplex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)orthopedic evaluationpodiatrist
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Friedland

The claimant, a senior pension administrator, was disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits after the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. The claimant asserted her employer altered terms by requiring regular unpaid overtime and denying lunch breaks. The employer's representative disputed these claims, stating overtime was infrequent, compensated by merit increases, and lunch breaks were permitted. The court affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that dissatisfaction with wages and workload does not constitute good cause for leaving a job. It was noted that conflicting testimonies presented a credibility issue, which the Board appropriately resolved based on substantial evidence.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary QuitGood CauseOvertimeWorkload DissatisfactionCredibility IssueSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEmployment LawAppeal Board Decision
References
4
Case No. 09-12-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2012

City of Beaumont v. Danny Stewart

Danny Stewart sued the City of Beaumont after being involved in a two-car collision with a vehicle operated by Ada Sariah, an employee of the City. The accident occurred while Sariah was on her lunch break, driving a City-owned vehicle. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. The trial court concluded that Sariah was within the course and scope of her employment or the City would remain liable under the Restatement of Torts. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that Sariah was not acting within the scope of her employment during an unpaid lunch break and the City's sovereign immunity was not waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActScope of EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorMotor Vehicle AccidentPlea to the JurisdictionAppellate ReviewGovernmental LiabilityEmployee Conduct
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 229 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