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. Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision

Testerman v. Zielinski

The case involves three consolidated appeals stemming from a personal injury action and a wrongful death action after a pickup truck collided with another vehicle. Robert C. Testerman, a passenger in the pickup truck, commenced a personal injury action. Daniel D. Bigelow initiated a wrongful death action as executor of the estates of Tenny Bigelow and Douglas L. Bigelow, the occupants of the other vehicle. The collision occurred when Rachel L. Zielinski, operating a pickup owned by her employer Pisa Electrical Construction & Manufacturing, Inc., drove through a stop sign. In Appeal No. 2, the court affirmed the dismissal of Testerman's personal injury claim against Pisa, citing Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. However, in Appeal No. 1, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Testerman's claim against Daniel Bigelow, finding insufficient evidence that Tenny Bigelow used reasonable care. Similarly, in Appeal No. 3, the court reversed the partial summary judgment on liability granted to Daniel Bigelow in the wrongful death action, for the same reasons as Appeal No. 1.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic LawAutomobile AccidentExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. R. I. Suresky & Sons, Inc.

The claimant, an automobile salesperson, was injured in an accident while driving a demonstrator vehicle provided by his employer to a grocery store on a holiday. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially granted benefits, ruling that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment because the claimant was providing a valuable service through the visibility of the demonstrator vehicle. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the claimant's travel was for a personal errand on personal time and that the mere presence of dealer identification on the vehicle did not transform personal use into business use. The court concluded there was no substantial evidence that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, as the claimant was neither on-call nor traveling to or from work at the time of the accident.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsDemonstrator VehiclePersonal ErrandCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentAutomobile SalespersonOff-Duty InjuryAppellate ReviewReversal of DecisionEmployer Benefit
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Greene v. City of New York Department of Social Services

Sue Greene, a homemaker for the New York City Department of Social Services, was injured in a car accident in 1974 while traveling between work assignments. Her claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied by a referee and subsequently affirmed by the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the Appellate Division, based on a finding that she used her personal car for convenience without employer authorization. The dissenting opinion argued that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's denial of benefits, emphasizing the unauthorized use of the vehicle. However, the order was ultimately reversed, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for further proceedings, indicating the majority found the denial was not dictated as a matter of law. This decision highlights the complexities of determining what constitutes 'in the course of employment' when an employee uses a personal vehicle without explicit authorization.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsScope of EmploymentPersonal Vehicle UseEmployer AuthorizationSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionWorkmen's Compensation BoardRemand OrderDissenting OpinionHomemaker Duties
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baughman v. Merchants Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal by Donald H. Baughman and Donald H. Baughman, Inc. from a declaration in favor of Merchants Mutual Insurance Company. The dispute centers on whether a commercial insurance policy clause excluded coverage for a 1978 single-vehicle accident. The accident occurred when Ralph E. Landwehr, an employee of Baughman, Inc. dispatched to John R. Schutt, Jr., Inc., made a personal detour in a leased tractor after completing his work duties. Landwehr was seriously injured, and the Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, stating the accident was outside the scope of employment. Baughman and Baughman, Inc. faced a substantial unpaid judgment after Landwehr sued them. Merchants Mutual denied coverage, citing an exclusionary clause requiring the vehicle to be used 'exclusively' in the business of the named insured (Schutt). The court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Landwehr's purely personal detour removed the vehicle from policy coverage, as it was not exclusively used in Schutt's business.

Insurance CoveragePolicy ExclusionCommercial InsuranceScope of EmploymentDeclaratory JudgmentVehicle AccidentPersonal UseEn Route InterpretationWorkers' Compensation PrinciplesContract Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. Speckard

Plaintiff, an employee of the State University, was injured in a car collision with defendant Hubert J. Speckard, who was also a State employee and superintendent of a correctional facility. Both were returning home from work in State-owned vehicles at the time of the accident. Plaintiff sued defendant for personal injuries, but the defendant raised an affirmative defense, asserting that workers' compensation was the plaintiff's exclusive remedy due to co-employment. The court examined whether the defendant was acting in the course of his employment, applying an exception for employer-provided vehicles used for commuting when the employer benefits. It was determined that because the defendant was on call 24 hours a day and used a State-provided vehicle equipped for work, his use of the vehicle was within the course of employment, making workers' compensation the plaintiff's exclusive remedy. Consequently, the cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against defendant Speckard was dismissed.

Co-employment defenseExclusive remedyAutomobile collisionCommuting exceptionEmployer benefit ruleState employeesSummary judgmentAffirmative defenseScope of employmentVehicle provision
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1979

Claim of Tsapatoris v. G. L. M. Corp.

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board which denied compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred while the claimant, a construction worker, was driving his personal vehicle to work approximately 10 miles from his home, prior to his scheduled work hours. The Board concluded that the injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, noting that the use of his personal vehicle was not a requirement of his job and any tools carried were for personal convenience. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination and affirmed the decision.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentCourse of EmploymentCommuting RulePersonal VehicleTravel ExpensesSubstantial EvidenceAppellate DecisionInjury CompensationBoard Determination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mancuso v. Collins

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had granted summary judgment to defendants John A. Camille, Todd M. Collins, Sharon R. Collins, and a fourth-party defendant in a multi-vehicle personal injury action, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's second amended complaint. The appellate court found that the defendants failed to meet their initial burden to establish that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 [d]. The defendants' own medical submissions indicated serious injuries with objective evidence. Although the defendants met their burden regarding the 90/180 category, the plaintiff successfully raised a factual issue. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the lower court's decision, denying all motions and cross-motions, and reinstated the second amended complaint.

Personal InjuryMulti-Vehicle AccidentSummary JudgmentSerious Injury ThresholdInsurance Law 5102(d)Appellate ReversalMedical EvidenceRange of MotionObjective EvidenceSpinal Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLaughlin v. Midrox Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance coverage dispute. Plaintiffs sought to compel Midrox Insurance Company to indemnify the Blodgett Brothers Partnerships for a $1 million judgment in an underlying personal injury action. The accident involved a motorcycle operated by plaintiff Charles R. McLaughlin and a pickup truck driven by Ronald Blodgett. Midrox had disclaimed coverage, arguing the accident occurred off insured premises and involved a registered vehicle. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the farmowner's policy did provide coverage. The court determined that public roadways used for transporting materials between farm parcels could be considered 'insured premises' and that the pickup truck's agricultural registration did not negate coverage given its exclusive use for farming purposes.

Personal InjuryFarmowner's InsuranceInsurance CoverageAgricultural TruckPolicy InterpretationOff-Premises AccidentPublic RoadwaysSummary JudgmentIndemnificationVehicle and Traffic Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Essig v. United States

Plaintiffs Robert and Jacqueline Essig sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injuries Robert sustained in a bicycle-vehicle collision involving a government vehicle. The vehicle was driven by Special Agent Edward P. Hamill of the DEA, who was intoxicated after leaving his office bar but was still on duty, attempting to arrange an undercover meeting. The collision occurred while Hamill was commuting in a government-issued vehicle, authorized for official use and home-to-office travel. The Court found the United States vicariously liable to the plaintiffs, concluding that Hamill was acting within the scope of his employment and using the vehicle with express permission. This liability was established under both New York's doctrine of respondeat superior and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1), with a trial on damages still pending.

Federal Tort Claims ActVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorVehicle and Traffic LawGovernment LiabilityDEA AgentDrunk DrivingBicycle AccidentCommuting
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 4,995 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