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

Graziano v. 110 Sand Co.

The case involves an injured truck driver, originally employed by Horan Sand & Gravel, who was assigned to work at 110 Sand Company's site. After sustaining injuries on the job, he accepted workers' compensation benefits from Horan. Subsequently, he and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against 110 Sand. 110 Sand moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was its 'special employee' and thus, the acceptance of workers' compensation benefits from Horan barred the lawsuit against them. The Supreme Court granted this motion, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the evidence supported the finding of a special employment relationship, and under Workers' Compensation Law, an injured worker who accepts benefits from their general employer is precluded from suing their special employer for the same injuries.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNew York LawEmployer LiabilityDerived Claim
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Huggins v. Masterclass Masonry

A bricklayer claimant was injured in a municipal bus shelter across from his worksite while eating lunch. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury compensable, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that lunchtime injuries are generally outside the scope of employment unless the employer maintains control, which was not established. The court also rejected arguments regarding proximity to the worksite, finding no causal relationship or special hazard, and dismissed the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), noting it does not wholly relieve the claimant of the burden of proving the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

Lunch Break InjuryBus Shelter AccidentScope of EmploymentEmployer ControlCausal RelationshipSpecial HazardFortuitous CoincidenceWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Flynn v. Ace Hardware Corp.

A claimant, a forklift operator for Ace Hardware Corporation, suffered a neck injury and stopped working in April 2004, filing for workers' compensation benefits in June 2004. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, finding the claimant failed to provide timely notice to the employer within 30 days as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the employer was not informed of a work-related injury until June 30, 2004, and the claimant did not demonstrate that the delay was not prejudicial to the employer. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination.

Timely NoticeWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer PrejudiceWork-Related InjuryAppealBoard Decision30-Day Notice PeriodFamily Medical Leave ActDisability BenefitsSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ12248957
Regular
Oct 06, 2025

QUINTON THORN vs. FORBIX CAPITAL CORP.; EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that applicant Quinton Thorn's psychiatric claim was barred by a post-termination defense. The Board determined the WCJ incorrectly applied Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10) instead of Section 3208.3(e) for psychiatric injuries. Applicant alleged psychiatric injury from sexual harassment and discrimination based on gender identity during his employment with Forbix Capital Corp. The Board rescinded the WCJ's findings and remanded the case to the trial level, directing the WCJ to properly analyze the post-termination defense, the date of injury, and consider the good faith personnel action defense if raised.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code Section 3208.2(c)Labor Code Section 3208.3(c)Labor Code Section 3208.3(e)Psychiatric InjuryPost-Termination DefenseGender Identity Discrimination
References
17
Case No. ADJ8312614, ADJ9055869
Regular
Sep 02, 2017

IMELDA TAPIA DE RODRIGUEZ vs. BIRRIERIA JALISCO, FARMERS INSURANCE, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case consolidates two workers' compensation claims filed by applicant Imelda Tapia De Rodriguez against Birrieria Jalisco. In one claim (ADJ9055869), the WCJ found a specific injury occurred but was barred by the post-termination defense; the Appeals Board affirmed this finding. In the other claim (ADJ8312614), the WCJ found no injury arose out of employment, which the Appeals Board also affirmed, relying on medical evidence and applicant's failure to properly cite record support in her petition. Applicant appealed, arguing the post-termination defense was inapplicable due to employer notice issues and that her credibility was wrongly assessed without proper interpreter use. A dissenting opinion argues that exceptions to the post-termination defense, specifically notice to the employer prior to termination and the date of injury occurring after termination, should have been applied, warranting reversal and further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrdersPost-Termination DefenseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Statute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 3550Notice of RightsQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1979

Gessino v. D'Andraia

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a decision finding that a claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The claimant sustained an injury while assisting the employer’s brother, under the belief that these activities were at the implied request and for the benefit of the employer. The Board concluded that based on credible evidence and the claimant's testimony, the injury constituted an accidental injury within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryBoard DecisionClaimant BeliefEmployer BenefitSubstantial EvidenceAppeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1995

Claim of Wint v. Hotel Waldorf Astoria

The claimant, employed by Hotel Waldorf Astoria, was involved in an altercation in January 1990 and subsequently terminated. Despite termination, payroll records were maintained, and the claimant remained in employment status as a union delegate until a grievance hearing in February 1990. On January 26, 1990, the claimant returned to the Hotel to pick up her paycheck and was injured after slipping and falling. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded this decision. A new WCLJ found the injury occurred in the course of employment, which the Board affirmed. The Hotel appealed this decision, contending that no employer-employee relationship existed at the time of the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the determination that the claimant was an employee.

Workers' CompensationEmployment StatusAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer-Employee RelationshipUnion DelegateCollective Bargaining AgreementPaycheck CollectionTermination DisputeSubstantial Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedro v. Village of Endicott

Claimant, a firefighter, sustained injuries while repairing his personal vehicle during "unstructured time" at the fire station. The self-insured employer and its plan administrator disputed the claim, arguing the activity was purely personal and not work-related. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined the injury was compensable, citing a departmental tolerance for such repairs during on-duty hours. The appellate court affirmed these decisions, holding that during periods of enforced waiting, reasonable activities are permissible, and the Board's finding of work-relatedness was supported by evidence of departmental tolerance.

Firefighter injurypersonal vehicle repairon-duty incidentunstructured timetolerated activityscope of employmentWorkers' Compensation Board appealcompensable injuryemployer toleranceadministrative appeal
References
7
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 18,448 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