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

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. 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

Holder v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.

Plaintiff, Buford T. Holder, sustained a severe right shoulder injury after slipping and falling in his employer's parking lot during a lunch break on January 10, 1984. The employer, Wilson Sporting Goods Company, and its insurer initially treated the injury as compensable but later disputed coverage, arguing it did not arise out of employment. The trial court found the injury compensable and awarded Holder 50% permanent partial disability. On appeal, the defendants challenged both the compensability and the extent of disability. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, distinguishing between 'en route' and 'on-premises lunch break' cases and finding the injury compensable. The Court also upheld the disability assessment, considering vocational factors beyond anatomical impairment, and denied the motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal.

Worker's Compensation AppealOn-Premises Lunch Break InjurySlip and Fall AccidentEmployer's Parking LotPermanent Partial DisabilityVocational RehabilitationAnatomical ImpairmentLoss of Earning CapacityCompensability of InjuryFrivolous Appeal Denial
References
25
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

Mapp v. Maryland Casualty Corp.

Clara Mapp, an assistant manager, suffered serious personal injuries after being assaulted and abducted during her lunch break while working in Orange, Texas. She sought workers' compensation benefits under her employer's insurance policy, but the trial court granted the insurance company's motion for summary judgment, determining her injuries were not sustained in the course and scope of employment. Mapp appealed, arguing a material issue of fact existed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mapp was not required to perform duties during lunch nor restricted to a specific eating place. Therefore, her injuries were not considered incidental to her employment, distinguishing her case from others where lunch-time injuries were deemed compensable.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentLunch Break InjuryAssault and AbductionSummary JudgmentTexas Workers' Compensation ActPersonal Comfort DoctrineCourse of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 10-93-224-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1994

Subsequent Injury Fund of the State of Texas (Formerly the Second Injury Fund) v. Larry Milligan

The Subsequent Injury Fund appeals a judgment awarding Larry Milligan lifetime benefits for injuries sustained at work. Milligan suffered two ankle injuries in 1987 and a third in 1989, leading to the total loss of use of both feet. He sued the Fund for lifetime benefits after settling with the workers' compensation carrier. The jury found permanent, total loss of use of both feet. The Fund challenged its statutory liability for lifetime benefits and the court's refusal to submit a jury question on total and permanent incapacity. The appellate court affirmed, finding the first issue unpreserved and the second resolved by a statutory conclusive presumption of total and permanent incapacity for the loss of both feet.

Workers' Compensation LawSubsequent Injury FundLifetime BenefitsTotal Permanent IncapacityAnkle InjuriesStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJury InstructionsConclusive PresumptionOccupational Injuries
References
6
Case No. ADJ7336300
Regular
Feb 19, 2014

EMANUEL AGUILAR vs. BHS CORRUGATED NORTH AMERICA, INC.; THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding of injury AOE/COE for Emanuel Aguilar. The Board found that Aguilar's injury, sustained in a rental car returning from an unpaid lunch break, was not compensable under the "going and coming rule" and its "lunch rule" extension. The WCAB determined that the employer's provision of the rental car to a co-employee, even if for business benefit, did not extend coverage to Aguilar during his personal, off-premises lunch. Commissioner Brass dissented, arguing the injury should be compensable due to employer benefit and the liberal construction of workers' compensation laws.

AOE/COEgoing and coming rulelunch ruleemployer's premisesrental carunpaid lunch breakmotor vehicle accidentspecial mission exceptioncompensabilityPetition for Reconsideration
References
10
Case No. No. 08-07-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo/Rosemary Smith v. Rosemary Smith/W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo

Rosemary Smith, an El Paso Police Officer, sued W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C., d/b/a Auto & Work Injury Clinic, and its employee Maria Gallardo, alleging negligence after a physical therapy session aggravated a prior back injury. The City of El Paso, Smith's worker's compensation subrogee, joined as a plaintiff. The jury found Gallardo negligent, awarding Smith $488,000, which the trial court reduced to $339,983.58. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals found the expert testimony on causation insufficient to establish that Gallardo's therapy proximately caused Smith's reherniation, as the expert only stated it was "possible." The court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyPhysical TherapyHerniated DiscSpinal SurgeryProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyAppeal
References
33
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
Showing 1-10 of 17,961 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