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. 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

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. 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. 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. 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
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

Claim of Rose v. Verizon New York, Inc.

The case involves a claimant who sustained an injury to her foot and hip after stepping in a pothole on a public street during an unpaid lunch break while moving her car. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury compensable, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, ruling that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that lunchtime injuries away from the employer's premises and during personal activities are generally not compensable unless the employer retains authority or the risk is incident to employment. The court concluded that the pothole incident was a personal decision not under employer control and the risk was shared by the public, thus supporting the Board's finding.

Workers' CompensationLunch Break InjuryPublic StreetCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentPersonal ActivityOff-Premises InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionAffirmation
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01467
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2021

Matter of Shyti v. ABM

Prena Shyti, an office cleaning person, sustained injuries after slipping on a sidewalk across the street from her workplace during a paid 15-minute break. She was on her way to a pizza parlor after smoking a cigarette, which she was instructed to do off-premises. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed her claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board ultimately reversed, finding the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, applying the 'coffee break rule,' which holds that accidents during short breaks, even off-premises, can be compensable if the activity is reasonable and sufficiently work-related.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out Of EmploymentCoffee Break RuleOff-Premises InjuryPaid BreakEmployee ConductAppellate DivisionThird Department
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 18,281 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