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
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2004

Morales v. Spring Scaffolding, Inc.

A construction worker, injured during his lunch break when a negligently constructed sidewalk bridge collapsed, brought suit under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The central legal question addressed was whether Labor Law § 240 (1), known as the "scaffold law," applies to injuries sustained during a lunch break. The Court found that the statute does apply, as the sidewalk bridge was an integral part of the work site and the accident was due to its improper construction, not solely the worker's conduct. The decision held the building owners liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the Court dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims against Spring Scaffolding, Inc., the erector of the bridge, concluding it was not an owner, contractor, or statutory agent at the time of the accident, but affirmed that Spring could face liability under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 due to faulty construction.

Labor Law 240(1)Scaffold LawConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryLunch BreakSidewalk BridgeParapet Wall CollapseNegligent ConstructionOwner LiabilityContractor Liability
References
21
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. ADJ7332384
Regular
Jul 19, 2011

DEBORAH CULP vs. UNITED HEALTH GROUP, U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY INSURANCE, Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the applicant's claim. The applicant argued her injury during an extended break en route to a PTA meeting was compensable. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment. This conclusion was based on stipulated facts indicating the accident occurred during more than a lunch break, for a personal errand unrelated to employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedStipulated FactsAOE/COEGoing and Coming RulePersonal Comfort DoctrineCompensable InjuryNon-compensable InjuryPaid Lunch Break
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. City of Rochester

Claimant, a parking monitor, appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board which denied her benefits for an accidental injury. The injury occurred when she fell on a wet floor while returning from an unpaid lunch break. The Board ruled the accident did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, a decision which was upheld on appeal. The court found that because the claimant had discretion over her lunch arrangements and the employer gained no benefit from her choice of restaurant, the incident fell outside the scope of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial of benefits.

Workers' CompensationLunch Break InjuryScope of EmploymentAccidentOff-DutyPersonal DiscretionEmployer AuthorityAppellate ReviewBenefit DenialInjury Claim
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 153 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