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
Feb 20, 2004

Claim of Marquis v. Frank's Vacuum Truck Service, Inc.

A claimant, a truck driver, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits after sustaining a gunshot injury to his left knee during a lunch break. The Board had ruled that the injury was not causally related as the claimant had substantially deviated from his employment at the time of the incident. Evidence presented indicated the claimant had previously been warned by his employer not to return to the area where the attack occurred due to a prior incident. Furthermore, his actions post-injury, such as driving away and attempting to prevent bystanders from calling the police, supported the Board's conclusion of a deviation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence to support the determination that the claimant was outside the scope of his employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentDeviation from EmploymentGunshot InjuryPersonal ActivityTruck DriverAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmedCausally Related InjuryScope of Employment
References
5
Case No. ADJ10204167
Regular
Oct 17, 2017

MARTIN POIRIER vs. MERCY HOUSING, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant suffered injuries from an automobile accident. The defendant sought reconsideration of the original finding that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to admit the police report and applicant's recorded statement into evidence. While acknowledging issues with applicant's credibility, the Board affirmed the original finding, concluding that deviations from the commute route were minor and foreseeable. A dissenting opinion argued that the applicant's inconsistent statements and significant unaccounted-for time constituted a substantial deviation, thus abandoning employment.

AOE/COEgoing and coming rulerequired vehicle exceptionsubstantial deviationabandonment of employmentcredibility assessmentpolice reportrecorded statementcustom routeincidental personal acts
References
21
Case No. ADJ1805486 (GOL 0100327)
Regular
Apr 30, 2010

SUZANNE SINGER vs. DISNEYLAND, DISNEY WORLD WIDE SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves an employee, Suzanne Singer, injured in a car accident after attending an employer-sponsored service award dinner. The employer, Disneyland, argued the injury was non-industrial due to a major deviation from a special mission exception to the going and coming rule and intoxication. While the Appeals Board agreed the injury occurred after a substantial deviation from the special mission, they noted the employer failed to prove intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident and might be estopped from raising that defense. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the finding of no industrial injury but deleted the intoxication finding.

Special mission exceptionGoing and coming ruleDeviationIntoxication defenseEstoppelCredibility determinationCourse of employmentArising out of employmentCumulative trauma injuryService award dinner
References
12
Case No. ADJ6788177
Regular
May 13, 2015

GREGORY GREENE vs. CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEMS, SEDGWICK CMS

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged a $75\%$ permanent disability award, arguing the primary treating physician's rating improperly combined various lower extremity impairments, violating the AMA Guides. The Board found the WCJ's reliance on the physician's opinion was supported by substantial evidence, emphasizing the need for accurate, not mechanical, application of the Guides. A dissenting opinion argued the rating was not substantial evidence as it failed to follow proper *Almaraz-Guzman* procedures for deviating from strict AMA Guides application and advocated for remand.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAmended Findings and AwardPetition for Reconsiderationindustrial injurypermanent disabilitylife pensionLabor Code section 4658 (d) increasesubstantial medical evidenceLabor Code section 4660 (b)(1)AMA Guides
References
4
Case No. ADJ9414071 ADJ10133403
Regular
Aug 13, 2018

Kevin McCoy vs. State of California - Pleasant Valley State Prison

This case involves an appeal regarding the permanent disability ratings for a correctional officer's right ankle and respiratory system (Valley Fever) injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case to the WCJ for further proceedings. The Board found that the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) ankle impairment rating was properly calculated, but the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) report on the respiratory injury did not sufficiently explain its deviation from strict AMA Guides application. The Board emphasized that medical evaluators must adhere to the AMA Guides or clearly justify any deviations to ensure substantial evidence.

WCABPleasant Valley State Prisonlegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundKevin McCoyADJ9414071ADJ10133403permanent disabilityright anklerespiratory system
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Oehley v. Syracuse Boys Club

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded death benefits to a claimant. The decedent, a program director, died from a skull fracture after leaving a special work errand at a fund-raising auction. The Board initially found that the death arose out of and in the course of employment, applying a presumption due to the special errand and disregarding testimony of personal deviation. However, the court reversed this decision, finding substantial evidence that the decedent had deviated from his employment-related trip for personal activities, including a personal meeting and subsequent intensive drinking. Consequently, the court held that the death did not occur while on a special errand and dismissed the claim for benefits.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand DoctrineDeviation from EmploymentPersonal IndulgenceCausal ConnectionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentHomicideIntoxicationAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Marthorne v. Home Attendant Service of Hyde Park, Inc.

The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. This decision was subsequently appealed. The claimant, a home aide, testified that she was injured in an automobile accident during her normal working hours while on her way to clean her supervisor's daughter's home, an activity she performed without additional pay at her supervisor's request. The Board concluded that this agreement was an extension of her employment relationship and did not constitute a substantial deviation. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence to support the determination that the accident occurred in the course of employment, and noted that even activities for a supervisor's private benefit can be compensable if sufficiently work-related and reasonable under the circumstances.

Accidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentHome AideAutomobile AccidentScope of EmploymentSupervisor's RequestCompensabilityFactual DeterminationAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fischer v. Kaleida Health

The claimant, a visiting nurse, sustained a broken left arm after falling while returning to her vehicle from lunch at an outdoor festival between patient appointments on July 22, 2007. She sought workers' compensation benefits. A workers' compensation law judge established the claim, finding the injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. This decision was affirmed by a divided panel of the Workers' Compensation Board and then by the full Board. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing that the claimant’s travel to the festival constituted a disqualifying deviation from her employment. The court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that dining at the festival did not constitute a disqualifying deviation, considering she was an “outside employee” and it was reasonable to obtain a meal.

Outside EmployeeAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentLunch BreakDeviation from EmploymentAppellate ReviewAffirmationVisiting NurseInjury CompensationEmployment Scope
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Town of Sardinia

Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. appealed a Supreme Court judgment that validated amendments to the Town of Sardinia Zoning Ordinance. Gernatt argued that the Town improperly adopted these amendments, violating notice requirements under Town Law and General Municipal Law, and the Open Meetings Law. They also contended the amendments were inconsistent with the Mined Land Reclamation Law, deviated from the Town's comprehensive plan, and constituted unconstitutional exclusionary zoning. The court found that the adopted amendments substantially differed from those proposed, thus violating notice requirements. It also concluded that the Town failed to refer the substantially different amendments to the county planning board and the Town Planning Board, violated the Open Meetings Law by making key decisions in executive session, and failed to adequately review environmental concerns under SEQRA. Furthermore, the court determined the amendments were superseded by the MLRL and constituted impermissible exclusionary zoning. Therefore, the judgment was reversed, and the petition was granted, nullifying the Town's amendments.

Zoning OrdinanceLand UseMining RegulationsNotice RequirementsPublic HearingsOpen Meetings LawSEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act)Mined Land Reclamation Law (MLRL)Comprehensive PlanExclusionary Zoning
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1993

Claim of Fullone v. Borg-Warner Corp.

The claimant, a security guard, sustained an injury after slipping in a department store parking lot while moving his car. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, concluding that the claimant's actions did not constitute a deviation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's determination.

security guardslip and fallparking lot injurycourse of employmentdeviation from employmentfactual issuesubstantial evidenceworkers' compensation appealAppellate Division rulingemployment injury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 6,145 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