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. ADJ18302905
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

CHRISTIAN CHAVEZ vs. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, STARR INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY COMPANY

Defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order (F&O) issued on April 15, 2025, by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the applicant, Christian Chavez, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and that this injury was not barred by the going and coming rule, based on the special risk exception. Defendant contended that there was no evidence to support the application of the special risk exception. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, applicant's answer, and the WCJ's report, ultimately denying the petition for reconsideration and concurring with the WCJ's findings regarding the special risk exception.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardChristian ChavezJetBlue Airways CorporationStarr Indemnity and Liability CompanyAdjudication Number ADJ18302905Los Angeles District OfficePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderArising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE)Going and coming rule
References
12
Case No. ADJ7987695 ADJ7987686
Regular
May 08, 2014

VANESSA BRUCE vs. VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM/PHYSICIANS FOR HEALTHY HOSPITALS; CRUM & FORSTER AND TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant, a licensed vocational nurse, sought workers' compensation for injuries sustained when she fell asleep driving home after working three extra hours off the clock due to a coworker's issue. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied her petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found the injury did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment, as the "going and coming rule" applied and neither the "special mission" nor "special risk" exceptions were met. The applicant's decision to stay late was voluntary, not at the employer's request, and falling asleep while driving is a common risk, not a special employment-related hazard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLicensed Vocational NurseSpecific InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjuryHeadachesCumulative InjurySleep DisorderGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission Exception
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
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. ADJ10147686
Regular
Jun 12, 2017

TOBY LAPESARDE vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision finding the applicant's injury compensable. The Board rescinded the original findings and returned the case for further proceedings to determine if the "special risk" exception to the going-and-coming rule applies. The WCJ initially found the injury compensable under the "special mission" exception, but the Board noted credibility issues regarding the applicant's assertion of mandatory overtime. The applicant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while commuting home after working a double shift.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryLicensed Vocational NursePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Risk ExceptionMandatory OvertimeCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
20
Case No. ADJ6657993
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

Fred Banales vs. Bank of America, Gallagher Bassett

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that denied applicant Fred Banales' claim for industrial injury. The WCAB found that the administrative law judge (WCJ) may have improperly focused on the applicant's cell phone use and the accident occurring on a public street, rather than the potential special risk exception to the going-and-coming rule. The Board rescinded the prior findings and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, including the admission of additional evidence like the police report, to determine if the employer's parking lot exit posed a special risk.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Risk ExceptionParking Lot ExitPublic StreetCell Phone UsageTraffic AccidentReconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05037 [163 AD3d 558]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2018

Matter of Empire State Transp. Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Comm.

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust for judicial approval of a settlement, nunc pro tunc, against the Special Funds Conservation Committee. The underlying issue stemmed from the Trust's failure to obtain consent from the Special Funds for a claimant's personal injury settlement, which led the Workers' Compensation Board to find a waiver of reimbursement rights. After an initial denial by the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division reversed and remitted, affirming the court's discretion in compelling such consent. Upon remittitur, the Supreme Court granted the petition, directing the Special Funds to provide nunc pro tunc consent. The Appellate Division affirmed this subsequent order, concluding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay was adequately explained, and no prejudice was demonstrated against the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationNunc Pro TuncSettlement ApprovalPersonal Injury ActionSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeAppellate DiscretionReimbursement WaiverJudicial ReviewAppellate PracticeNassau County
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1965

Rivera v. Hellman

This case involves a motion to confirm a Special Referee's report concerning the amounts and priorities of various liens. The Special Referee conducted a hearing and reported on claims from an attorney for the plaintiff ($793.50), Roosevelt Hospital ($846.53), and the Millinery Health Fund ($641.00, later adjusted to $528). The report established the amounts of each lien and recommended priorities, placing the attorney's lien first, followed by the hospital lien (except for a $12 outpatient service), and then the compensation lien. The court concurred with the Special Referee's report and recommendations, granting the motion to confirm.

Lien PriorityAttorney's LienHospital LienDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial Referee ReportMotion GrantedNew York Supreme CourtLien LawMotion Practice
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06200
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Matter of NYAHSA Servs., Inc. v. Special Funds Group

This case concerns an appeal by NYAHSA Services, Inc., the workers' compensation insurance carrier for St. Patrick's Nursing Home, from an order denying its petition for judicial approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc. The underlying matter involved Karen DiNoia, who sustained injuries in 2001 during employment and settled a third-party personal injury action in 2005 for $400,000. Although NYAHSA consented, the Special Funds Group's consent was not obtained at the time, which is crucial for the carrier to be reimbursed from the Special Disability Fund. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing a lack of required documentation. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the decision, finding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay in seeking judicial relief was not the petitioner's fault, and the Special Funds Group was not prejudiced, thus granting the petition.

Nunc Pro TuncPersonal Injury SettlementJudicial ApprovalAppellate ReviewSpecial Disability FundInsurance Carrier ReimbursementSupreme Court DiscretionDelayPrejudiceReasonableness of Settlement
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1998, with the claim becoming the Special Fund for Reopened Cases' liability in 2006. In 2008, a licensed massage therapist submitted requests for payment for services allegedly prescribed by the claimant's treating physician. The Special Fund objected, arguing massage therapists are not authorized providers under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found massage therapy compensable if performed by a licensed therapist under a physician's supervision, holding payments in abeyance pending prescription submission. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this in an amended decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s determination that the Special Fund is liable, as the massage therapist was not an authorized provider nor did they fall under any statutory exceptions like being a registered nurse, person trained in diagnostic techniques, physical therapist, or occupational therapist.

Workers' Compensation LawMassage TherapyAuthorized Medical ProvidersSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensability of TreatmentStatutory ExceptionsAppellate ReviewProvider AuthorizationMedical Treatment GuidelinesSupervision of Care
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,533 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