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. 526927
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Matter of Curry v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles

In Matter of Curry v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, petitioner Joseph P. Curry appealed a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition. Curry's driver's license was revoked in 2012 due to a fifth alcohol-related driving offense. His 2017 application for relicensing and a hardship exception was denied by the Department of Motor Vehicles' Driver Improvement Bureau and affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Board. Curry challenged this denial as arbitrary and capricious, citing rehabilitation efforts and medical needs for a license. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, finding the Commissioner's denial was not arbitrary or capricious given Curry's history of multiple relapses, traffic infractions, and an incomplete DWI evaluation, despite his claims of sobriety and medical appointments.

Driver's License RevocationAlcohol-Related OffensesHardship ExceptionCPLR article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardDepartment of Motor VehiclesReissuance DiscretionRehabilitation EffortsMedical Limitations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2003

Yanulavich v. Appeals Board of Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

The petitioner appealed the dismissal of his CPLR article 78 proceeding, which challenged the Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) revocation of his driver's license. The revocation stemmed from an incident where the petitioner, who reported vision issues due to diabetes, struck a flag person. After failing initial vision tests and subsequently passing with corrective lenses, the petitioner failed a road test, leading to the license revocation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the DMV had reasonable grounds, based on the accident, the petitioner's statement, and his physician's report, to require a road test, thus supporting the revocation.

driver's licenselicense revocationvision impairmentdiabetesroad test failureadministrative appealCPLR Article 78Vehicle and Traffic Lawreasonable groundsmotor vehicle accident
References
2
Case No. ADJ9099900
Regular
May 04, 2015

JESSEKA BETTS vs. YMCA OF THE EAST VALLEY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming a prior award. The applicant, a YMCA site director, sustained injuries in a car accident while en route to a work-related meeting. The Board found that the "required vehicle exception" to the going and coming rule applied, as the applicant was required to use her personal vehicle for her job duties, for which she was reimbursed mileage. Therefore, her injuries were deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardgoing and coming defenserequired vehicle exceptionmaterial deviationwork-related meetingmileage reimbursementsplit shiftssite directorcar insurancelicensing inspection
References
8
Case No. ADJ8009793
Regular
Nov 07, 2013

FELICIANO BARRANDA, FAUSTINO BASABES vs. MIKE ETCHANDY FARIAS, INC.; STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

In this workers' compensation case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendants' petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB affirmed the finding that the applicants sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, specifically applying the "required vehicle" exception to the going and coming rule. This exception was found applicable because the employer benefited incidentally from the use of applicant's private vehicle for transporting workers and tools between fields on the same day. The WCAB gave great weight to the Administrative Law Judge's credibility findings, particularly the testimony of applicant Feliciano Barranda.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAOE-COEGoing and Coming RuleRequired Vehicle ExceptionJoint Petition for ReconsiderationCredibility FindingSubstantial EvidenceSole Witness TestimonyEmployer Witness TestimonyApplicant Testimony
References
1
Case No. ADJ7582920
Regular
Mar 07, 2014

CRAIG SCHULTZ vs. JOINT TEST, TACTICS \u0026 TRAINING/JT3, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior finding, holding that the applicant's injury sustained during his commute to work is barred by the "going and coming" rule. While the WCJ found a transportation exception applied due to the employer potentially benefiting from the applicant's personal vehicle, the WCAB found no such exception was proven. The Board emphasized that the applicant was commuting outside of work hours in his personal car, and no evidence indicated he was engaged in a special mission or that the employer required him to use his own vehicle. Therefore, the applicant's claim was denied as it did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment.

Going and Coming RuleTransportation ExceptionIndustrial InjuryTechnical DrafterEdwards Air Force BasePersonal Vehicle UseEmployer BenefitCourse of EmploymentSpecial MissionLabor Code Section 3600
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Matter of Wright v. Nelson Tree Serv.

Claimant, an outside employee, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling from his hotel to the employer's bucket truck parking lot. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, stating the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment, and that the "outside employee" exception did not apply because he reported to a fixed location before work, and he wasn't required to stay at the hotel. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed, applying the "traveling employee" exception, noting that although not strictly required, it was impractical for the claimant to commute given the long distance from his home. The Board found the claimant's activities were reasonable and his status as an employee continued throughout his stay away from home. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support that the claimant's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment.

Accidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentTraveling Employee ExceptionOutside Employee ExceptionMotor Vehicle AccidentTraumatic Brain InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmedEmployer LiabilityPer Diem Expenses
References
10
Case No. 02 Civ. 5571(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses defendants' motion for partial summary judgment concerning plaintiffs' standing in a securities litigation against Vivendi Universal S.A., Jean-Marie Messier, and Guillaume Hannezo. The central issue is whether various investment management companies, suing on behalf of investment funds and their investors, possess constitutional standing under the "Huff exception." The court examines the legal structures of numerous foreign investment vehicles from Germany, Luxembourg, France, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, and Denmark. It concludes that most management companies for German, Luxembourgian FCPs, French FCPs, Belgian FCPs, Swedish, and Austrian funds satisfy the Huff exception, denying summary judgment against them. However, the court grants summary judgment against Danish investment companies, finding their relationship with the Associations does not meet the exception's requirements. The opinion also rules that post-filing assignments or substitutions under Rule 17 FRCP can cure standing defects, allowing plaintiffs time to amend their complaints.

Securities LitigationStandingSummary JudgmentInvestment FundsManagement CompaniesArticle III StandingHuff ExceptionRule 17 FRCPClass ActionVivendi Universal
References
18
Case No. ADJ7269472
Regular
Mar 20, 2012

SHARON EWEGBEMI vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury in the course of employment. The applicant argued exceptions to the going-and-coming rule, including special mission, dual purpose, special risk, and required vehicle exceptions. Reconsideration was granted because crucial hearing minutes and summary of evidence were missing from the record, and the original WCJ was unavailable. This prevents the Board from issuing a just decision and necessitates further review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Risk ExceptionRequired Vehicle ExceptionCourse of EmploymentSidewalk InjuryConstructive PremisesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ12249871
Regular
Feb 03, 2023

ISABEL AKERLUNDH (Deceased) vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, PERMISSIBLY SELF INSURED

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration by the applicant's dependents following the denial of their workers' compensation claim. The applicant, Isabel Akerlundh, a Behavioral Health Specialist, died in a car accident while commuting to work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the injury was barred by the "going and coming rule." The Board found no evidence that the applicant was performing services for her employer or that an exception to the rule applied to her commute, as county vehicles were available and use of a personal vehicle was not required.

GOING AND COMING RULECOURSE OF EMPLOYMENTARISING OUT OF EMPLOYMENTPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEREPORT AND OPINION ON DECISIONBEHAVIORAL HEALTH SPECIALISTCOUNTY OF RIVERSIDEPERSONAL VEHICLE USE
References
6
Case No. ADJ9896370
Regular
Oct 19, 2017

GUILLERMO RESTREPO vs. SAN GORGONIO MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ALPHA FUND

The applicant sought compensation for an industrial injury sustained in a car accident while commuting to work, arguing it fell under exceptions to the going and coming rule. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the administrative law judge's denial of the claim. The WCAB found the applicant's testimony regarding the necessity of using his personal vehicle for work-related tasks lacked credibility. Crucially, the evidence did not establish that the employer expressly or impliedly required the applicant to use his vehicle or that such use was a custom and practice relied upon by the employer.

Going and Coming RuleIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersWCJDirector of Environmental ServicesMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment ContractJob Duties
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 6,245 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