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

Hennings v. Town of Hempstead

Claimant, a parks department laborer, was injured in a motorcycle accident while returning from lunch. He had used his motorcycle to travel to work and then left it to go to lunch in a coworker's car. Upon returning, he crashed his motorcycle on a public road. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed his claim, finding that he was on his lunch hour and not performing any work duties when the accident occurred. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

Workers' CompensationMotorcycle AccidentCourse of EmploymentLunch Break InjuryAffirmed DecisionBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewLaborerParks DepartmentPersonal Commute
References
1
Case No. ADJ6628362
Regular
Dec 23, 2010

MAURICE CARR vs. OTIS GLADNEY, Dba AAA MOTORCYCLE ESCORT SERVICE

This case involves a worker injured while employed as a motorcycle escort driver. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award to correct a clerical error. Specifically, the WCAB amended the award to ensure the employer, Otis Gladney dba AAA Motorcycle Escort Service, was explicitly named as the liable party, as was originally intended. The WCAB affirmed all other aspects of the original findings and award concerning the applicant's injuries and benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeMotorcycle escort driverUninsured employerIndustrial injuryScapula injuryElbow injuryForearm injury
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02530 [160 AD3d 1189]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2018

Perkins v. County of Tompkins

Christopher Perkins was involved in a motorcycle accident after borrowing a motorcycle from his sister, Josephine Hines. Kathleen Perkins, as his guardian, sued Robert Zimmer Sr., whose vehicle Perkins veered away from. Zimmer then filed a third-party action against Hines for negligent entrustment, arguing she should not have loaned Perkins the motorcycle. Hines moved for summary judgment, contending she showed due care and that an injured party cannot claim negligent entrustment against the entrustor, but the Supreme Court denied her motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding Hines' testimony raised a factual question about her knowledge of Perkins' competency to operate the motorcycle and affirming that a third-party claim for contribution or indemnification based on negligent entrustment is valid.

Negligent EntrustmentMotorcycle AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionContribution ClaimIndemnification ClaimCompetence of OperatorDriver's LicenseMaterial Question of FactAppellate Division
References
10
Case No. ADJ7039301
Regular
Mar 16, 2011

ROBLY HART vs. LA JOLLA PACIFIC/DRR NEFF & ASSOCIATES, OAKS RIVER INSURANCE/BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

This case concerns Robly Hart's workers' compensation claim for an injury sustained in a motorcycle accident. The applicant was a construction consultant who used his motorcycle for work, traveling between home, job sites, and interviews. The primary dispute centers on whether the accident occurred during the course and scope of his employment, with conflicting evidence regarding his activities and timeline leading up to the incident. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report that found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility due to inconsistent statements and timeline discrepancies.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Findings and OrderCourse of EmploymentConstruction ConsultantBuilding InspectorMotorcycle TravelJob Sites
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sulewski v. Federal Express Corp.

A cargo plane crashed in Malaysia in 1989, resulting in the death of aircraft mechanic Leonard Sulewski. The plaintiff initiated a wrongful death action against Federal Express Corporation, successor to Flying Tiger Line, alleging liability under the Warsaw Convention and common law negligence. The central legal question revolved around whether Sulewski was traveling as a passenger or an on-duty employee at the time of the crash. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, presenting arguments regarding Sulewski's employment status and the applicability of the Convention. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact, concluding that Sulewski was an on-duty employee, not a passenger, and therefore the Warsaw Convention did not apply. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Wrongful DeathWarsaw ConventionSummary JudgmentAirline LiabilityEmployee StatusPassenger StatusInternational TransportationAircraft MechanicScope of EmploymentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1992

National General Insurance v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

This case concerns a declaratory judgment action regarding insurance coverage following a fatal airplane crash. Warren Geddes, president of American Investor Services, Inc. (AIS), was piloting a plane carrying Gary Conway, an AIS employee, when it crashed, killing both. National General Insurance Company, insurer of the plane owner, sought for Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, AIS's workers' compensation insurer, to defend and indemnify AIS and Geddes' Estate in a wrongful death action. Hartford denied coverage for Geddes' Estate, arguing he was not a named or additional insured under their policy. The court modified the initial judgment, declaring that Hartford has no duty to defend or indemnify the Estate of Geddes, while otherwise affirming the judgment.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentWrongful DeathDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyNamed InsuredAdditional InsuredWorkers' Compensation PolicyAirplane CrashEstate Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Syracuse Hancock Professional Firefighters Ass'n. v. Newman

This case involves an appeal by an unnamed petitioner, representing airport crash rescue workers, seeking to overturn a decision by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The dispute arose after the City of Syracuse's labor relations agency and PERB denied the workers' request for compulsory interest arbitration, arguing that they were not members of an "organized fire department" under Civil Service Law § 209 (4). The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed PERB's determination, finding that its interpretation of the statute, which excluded the specialized airport crash rescue unit from the definition of an "organized fire department," was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The court deferred to PERB's administrative policy and expertise.

Public Employment Relations BoardCompulsory Interest ArbitrationCivil Service LawAirport Crash Rescue UnitFire Department DefinitionTaylor LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewStatutory InterpretationCollective Bargaining Impasse
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Air Crash Off Long Island, New York

Plaintiffs Robert Jude Loffredo and Michael Steward, administrators of the estates of deceased flight attendants Elaine F. Loffredo and Daryl K. Edwards, sought summary judgment to strike Trans World Airlines, Inc.'s (TWA) workers' compensation defenses. TWA cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing the decedents were not "passengers" under the Warsaw Convention, thus limiting remedies to state workers' compensation law. The District Court, applying the Sulewski test, determined that Loffredo and Edwards were performing employment obligations as deadheading crew members, contractually required to be on Flight 800 for subsequent active duty. The court concluded they were not passengers under the Warsaw Convention, as their primary purpose for being on board was to fulfill employment duties rather than simply travel. Consequently, Plaintiffs' motion was denied, and TWA's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.

Summary JudgmentWorkers CompensationWarsaw ConventionDeadheading EmployeesFlight AttendantsEmployment ObligationsPassenger StatusInternational TransportationWrongful DeathAirline Liability
References
8
Case No. ADJ2897160
Regular
Dec 13, 2010

JAMES HUTCHRAFT vs. PAN MOTORCYCLES, INC., UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS GROUP

In this workers' compensation case, James Hutchcraft sought penalties and attorney's fees for alleged unreasonable delays in authorizing a surgical consultation and cervical surgery. The Appeals Board denied his petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision. The Board found that Hutchcraft failed to meet his burden of proving any delay by the defendant in authorizing the consultation or the surgery. Lacking evidence of a delay, the issue of reasonableness was not reached.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Sections 58145814.5Unreasonable DelayAuthorizationOrthopedic SurgeonCervical SurgeryBurden of ProofMedical Treatment
References
2
Case No. ADJ8079708
Regular
May 06, 2013

JAMES AZBILL vs. FATORS MOTORCYCLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior finding, affirming the claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. However, the Board reversed the finding that the applicant was entitled to the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402(b). This presumption requires the filing of a DWC-1 claim form, which was absent in this case. The Board will return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings on deferred issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFators MotorcyclesState Compensation Insurance FundJames AzbillADJ8079708Opinion and OrderReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJStatute of Limitations
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 61 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