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. ADJ10864843
Regular
Nov 15, 2018

YOLANDA PLASCENCIA vs. HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA, SOMPO AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who sustained injuries after falling into a pothole on her employer's premises during a break. The applicant was in the process of switching vehicles with her daughter when the incident occurred. The defendant argued the injury was not AOE/COE, as the personal vehicle exchange served no employer benefit and the personal comfort doctrine did not apply. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the injury compensable under the personal comfort doctrine. The Board reasoned that it's reasonably contemplated for employees to access the employer's parking lot during breaks, and moving a personal car is a personal convenience incidental to employment.

AOE/COEPersonal Comfort DoctrineIndustrial InjuryCourse of EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJEmployer's PremisesPaid Break
References
2
Case No. ADJ8550333
Regular
May 15, 2015

STEPHEN MARTIN BLOXHAM vs. LITHIA FORD MAZDA SUZUKI, HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that a car salesman's injuries from a car accident while purchasing cigarettes on a paid, employer-authorized break arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. This falls under the personal comfort doctrine, an exception to the going and coming rule, and the employer's encouragement of "prospecting" at the store further supported coverage. The Board rejected the defendant's argument that smoking's health detriments should disqualify it from the personal comfort doctrine.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactOrderOpinion on DecisionAOE/COEgoing and coming rulepersonal comfort doctrinepaid breakemployer's permissionprospecting
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2012

Ali v. State

The claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims that dismissed their claim for personal injuries. The incident occurred on February 24, 2009, at the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board office when a security guard, reacting to news of his grandmother's death, punched a wooden bench causing it to fall on the claimant. The claimant subsequently filed a personal injury claim against the State of New York. The Court of Claims granted the defendant's application to dismiss the claim, determining that the security guard was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to his employment, and his conduct was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, thus precluding vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentForeseeabilityEmployee MisconductClaim DismissalCourt of Claims DecisionAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
7
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
May 17, 1999

Giordano v. Toys R Us, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury complaint. The plaintiff's case relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. However, the appellate court found that the "exclusive control" element of the doctrine was not satisfied. Evidence suggested that the plaintiff or co-workers could have disturbed the wooden board that fell and caused the injury. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants.

Personal InjuryRes Ipsa LoquiturNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive ControlPremises LiabilityStockroom SafetyFalling DebrisCausation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2002

D'Amato v. Access Manufacturing, Inc.

The plaintiff, a welder's assistant, sustained personal injuries when his hand was caught in a metal grinding machine at the defendant's Queens manufacturing facility. The plaintiff sued the defendant, a corporation that manufactured metal doors and handrailings. The Supreme Court, Queens County, entered judgment for the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in precluding a special employment defense under the Workers' Compensation Law, based on the doctrine of law of the case. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the law of the case doctrine was misapplied as the special employment issue had not been previously litigated. A new trial was granted on the issue of liability only, while the jury's findings as to damages were affirmed. The court also noted errors in permitting speculative expert testimony and limiting the defendant's ability to refresh the plaintiff's recollection.

Personal InjurySpecial EmploymentLaw of the CaseAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulingsLiabilityDamagesNew TrialJury VerdictCorporate Entity
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00653 [179 AD3d 1412]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of James v. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc.

Claimant Christina James sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a work-related ankle injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established an employer-employee relationship and awarded benefits. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc. appealed this decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for review was denied due to incompleteness; specifically, referring to attached pages for the "Basis for Appeal" instead of providing the information directly on the form RB-89. Home Comfort then appealed the Board's denial to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board acted within its discretion by refusing to consider an application that did not fully comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1).

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewIncomplete ApplicationForm RB-89Administrative ReviewDiscretionary AuthorityProcedural ComplianceThird DepartmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipJurisdictional Defect
References
8
Case No. ADJ6671912
Regular
Nov 20, 2013

HONG GUANG ZHU, Deceased HE RUI YUN, Spouse vs. TRI VILLAGE CHINESE RESTAURANT, FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior finding that the decedent chef's death arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The decedent was shot and killed while resting in his car during a split shift, a common and permitted practice. The Board found this constituted a neutral risk, as no personal motive for the murder was identified, thus satisfying the "personal comfort doctrine." Therefore, the death was deemed compensable as it was linked to his employment by time, place, and circumstance.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS OF FACTCOURSE OF EMPLOYMENTARISING OUT OF EMPLOYMENTCHEFSPLIT SHIFTPERSONAL COMFORT DOCTRINENEUTRAL RISKUNKNOWN MOTIVE
References
0
Case No. ADJ8801352
Regular
Jun 06, 2014

Robert Coon vs. Swift Transportation, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

This case involves a student truck driver attacked while on a dinner break, sustaining severe injuries including partial quadriplegia. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Board applied the "commercial traveler" rule and the "personal comfort" doctrine, finding the employee's actions were incidental to his employment. Crucially, the Board determined the attack was a "neutral risk" as there was no evidence of personal motive for the assault.

AOE/COECommercial Traveler RulePersonal Comfort DoctrineNeutral Risk DoctrineThird-Party AssaultUnknown MotiveUnprovoked AttackLong Haul TruckerStudent DriverMentor
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2013

Claypoole v. Twin City Ambulance Corp.

Plaintiffs, including Christina Claypoole, initiated a personal injury action against an unnamed defendant, alleging negligence during Claypoole's ambulance transport which led to a hip fracture. The defendant sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, asserting a lack of negligence and evidence of injury under their care. The Supreme Court denied this motion, prompting the defendant's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable based on the defendant's own submissions, thereby establishing triable issues of fact concerning negligence. The evidence indicated that Claypoole, while unconscious and in the exclusive custody of the defendant, sustained a hip fracture, and experienced pain only after being in the ambulance, reinforcing the applicability of res ipsa loquitur.

Personal InjuryNegligenceRes Ipsa LoquiturSummary JudgmentAmbulance TransportHip FractureAppellate ReviewExclusive ControlTriable Issues of FactProximate Cause
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 3,293 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