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. ADJ8949252
Regular
Feb 14, 2018

SERGIO CERON (Deceased), GINA PIELLUSCH (Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem), SABRINA CERON PIELLUSCH, CLAUDIA CERON, DAVID CERON, ROXANNA CURTIS, vs. HAMBURG, KARIC, EDWARD & MARTIN; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the finding that the deceased paralegal's death was not industrially caused. The Board affirmed the judge's conclusion that the decedent was not performing a service for his employer or acting within the course of employment at the time of death. The applicant failed to prove the personal comfort exception applied, as the decedent was not paid for his lunch break. Deference was given to the judge's credibility assessment of a key witness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurydeathgoing and coming rulepersonal comfort exceptioncourse of employmentlabor codecompensable injuryhourly paywitness credibility
References
13
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Polanco v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center

Plaintiffs Pearl Polanco, Carol McCarthy, and Wilma Steel-Lopez, former employees of The Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, brought claims under the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging they were not paid for work performed during lunch breaks and after shifts. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the state claims were preempted and federal claims precluded by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, denied the defendant's motion, concluding that the plaintiffs' NYLL and FLSA claims assert independent statutory rights that are neither preempted nor precluded by the LMRA.

Wage DisputesOvertime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawLabor Management Relations ActPreemption DoctrineClaim PreclusionMotion to DismissEmployee RightsStatutory Rights
References
23
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,011 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