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

In re the Claim of Robles

Judge Mikoll, J., dissents from a decision that found a claimant guilty of misconduct, leading to his termination on July 18, 1977. The employer's witness stated the claimant, a food service worker, was observed drinking beer in a park during his lunch break. The claimant denied both drinking and violating any company rules. The employer failed to produce any rule prohibiting employees from leaving the premises or consuming alcohol off-premises during lunch, with only an outdated contract prohibiting on-premises drinking. Mikoll, J. argues that the record lacks substantial evidence of misconduct, as an employee's actions on their own time, not affecting their job performance, are generally not subject to employer control. Citing Matter of Llano [Levine], the dissent concludes that the board's decision should be reversed.

MisconductTermination of employmentLunch break policyOff-duty conductAlcohol consumptionEmployer rulesLabor contractsSubstantial evidenceDissenting opinionWorkers' rights
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 1978

Claim of Bender v. Long Island Lighting Co.

A claimant sustained an arm injury while playing football with coemployees during lunch hour on the employer's parking lot. The record indicated that employees, including supervisory personnel, frequently engaged in athletic activities on the employer's premises, and these activities were not prohibited. Employees remaining on premises for lunch were not required to punch out and were subject to call. The Workers' Compensation Board found that the employer was aware of these activities and that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationLunch Break InjuryRecreational Activity InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer KnowledgeSupervisory ParticipationParking Lot InjuryFootball InjuryAccidental InjuryBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. ADJ8935299
Regular
Jan 03, 2014

DAVID LOW vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a FedEx driver who sustained injuries from a fall on the employer's premises during an unpaid lunch break. The Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the injury was industrial. The injury, resulting from an idiopathic coughing fit and subsequent fall on the employer's property, is compensable under the "personal comfort doctrine" and established case law regarding idiopathic falls on premises. The board affirmed that such injuries occurring on employer premises are compensable even if caused by non-work-related conditions.

AOE/COEunpaid lunch breakemployer's premisesidiopathic conditionpersonal comfort doctrineWCJPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationCounty of Contra Costa v. RamirezOrrala v. Harris Ranch
References
10
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Carroll v. Provenzano

An employer and their insurance carrier appealed a Workmen's Compensation Board decision. The claimant, a bartender, was injured slipping on a public sidewalk while returning home for lunch during an unscheduled Sunday shift. The employer had directed the claimant to go home for lunch but remained subject to recall. Appellants argued this was a conventional off-premises injury, but the court found special circumstances due to the employer's direction and continuous recall, which meant employment was not interrupted. The court affirmed the Board's finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentLunch BreakSpecial CircumstancesOff-Premises InjuryEmployer ControlContinuous RecallBartenderPublic Sidewalk
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Watson v. American Can Co.

The claimant, a matron, was injured while returning from cashing her paycheck at a bank, a task undertaken during her lunch break. The employer had changed its payment method from cash to check after a robbery and made special arrangements with a nearby bank to facilitate check cashing for its employees, including increasing tellers and extending hours. Despite the general rule that injuries off-premises during lunch are not compensable, the court found that the journey was partly for the employer's benefit due to its payment policy. Therefore, the activity was deemed sufficiently related to employment. The decision and award of workmen's compensation were affirmed.

Workmen's CompensationEmployer LiabilityInjury during lunch breakCourse of employmentBenefit of employerCheck cashing policyOff-premises injuryAppealsSelf-insured employerAccident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1982

Claim of Borelli v. New York Telephone Co.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision dated July 9, 1982. The claimant sustained injuries after falling on a sidewalk upon exiting her employer's premises for lunch. The Board found the injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. The employer appealed, arguing the lunch break removed the incident from workers' compensation coverage. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the "gray area" rule, noting the accident occurred in close proximity to the workplace on a normal route of ingress/egress with a special hazard. Additionally, the employer, through its agent Tishman Management and Leasing, was responsible for the sidewalk's maintenance.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentIngress and EgressSidewalk FallPremises LiabilityGray Area RuleEmployer ResponsibilityAppellate ReviewInjury SustainedLunch Break
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 1999

Rancano v. Chase Manhattan Bank

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action where a plaintiff sustained injuries from a trip and fall over a step stool in an office corridor. The defendant premises occupant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of notice regarding the hazardous condition. The motion was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.). The appellate court unanimously affirmed this denial, finding that the plaintiff's submissions raised issues of fact concerning the cluttered corridor and whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the danger. The court also upheld the consideration of a co-worker's affidavit, which detailed prior complaints about the corridor's condition, as no prejudice or willful disobedience of disclosure obligations was demonstrated by the defendant.

Personal InjuryTrip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionIssue of FactConstructive NoticeActual NoticeCo-worker AffidavitDisclosure DisputeAppellate Affirmance
References
3
Case No. Index No. 510151/20
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

Normile v. DB Ins. Co., Ltd.

This case involves the interpretation of a general liability insurance policy's "Limitation of Coverage to Designated Premises or Project" endorsement. The plaintiff, Catherine Normile, was injured off-premises by an employee of 305 Union St. Station, Inc. (Kittery Restaurant) who was returning from a food delivery. Defendant DB Insurance Co., Ltd. (the insurer) disclaimed coverage, asserting the incident did not occur at the specified covered premises. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the policy's language, which limits coverage to operations "necessary or incidental to those premises," requires a direct premises-based connection, rather than merely an operation incidental to the business itself. Consequently, coverage was deemed inapplicable as the incident did not have the requisite spatial or circumstantial link to the designated premises.

Insurance LawGeneral LiabilityPolicy InterpretationDesignated PremisesOff-premises IncidentFood DeliverySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBodily InjuryCoverage Limitation
References
24
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
Showing 1-10 of 545 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