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

Claim of Deland v. Hutchings Psychiatric Center

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision awarding benefits for injuries sustained while driving home after working unusually long hours, leading to her falling asleep at the wheel due to exhaustion. The Board found a nexus between her employment and the accident. The appellate court acknowledged the existence of a substantial nexus but identified a prior Board decision with similar facts that reached a contrary result. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for an explanation of the deviation from its prior precedent.

Accidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentComing and Going RuleSpecial Hazard ExceptionEmployee ExhaustionOvertime WorkRemand for ExplanationAppellate ReviewEmployment NexusDeviation from Precedent
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Privatera v. Yellow Cab Co.

A 75-year-old clerk for Yellow Cab Company was assaulted by a co-employee, Cross, after an incident where the clerk referred two women looking for drivers to other idle employees. Cross wrongly believed the clerk had used inappropriate language, leading to a physical altercation that injured the clerk's hip. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed an award, determining the initial interaction was work-related, establishing a nexus between the employment and the assault. The employer appealed, arguing it was a personal dispute. The court upheld the Board's finding, stating that substantial evidence supported the work-related nexus, making the injury compensable.

Workers' CompensationWorkplace AssaultCourse of EmploymentPersonal AnimosityWork-Related InjurySubstantial EvidenceCompensabilityNexus to EmploymentCo-employee DisputeHip Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2012

Lewis v. East Ramapo Central School District

This case concerns an appeal by the East Ramapo Central School District against an order that granted a petitioner leave to serve a late notice of claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed the lower court's decision, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court considered four factors for granting leave: actual knowledge of the claim by the school district, the petitioner's infancy and its nexus to the delay, a reasonable excuse for the delay, and substantial prejudice to the school district. The petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the 15-month delay after reaching the age of majority and did not demonstrate that the school district had timely actual knowledge of the claim or that it would not be substantially prejudiced by the three-year-and-eight-month delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal Law § 50-e(5)School District LiabilityNegligent SupervisionInfancy ExcuseActual Knowledge RequirementSubstantial PrejudiceAppellate DivisionAssault in SchoolTimeliness of Claim
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mintiks v. Metropolitan Opera Ass'n

The dissenting opinion argues against remitting the case to the Workers’ Compensation Board, contending that the Board's factual findings regarding a decedent's murder by a co-employee in the course of employment should be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. The dissent emphasizes the statutory presumption of compensability for unwitnessed or unexplained deaths arising out of employment, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), (3). It states that the Board has the exclusive right to evaluate and reject evidence, and the burden to rebut the presumption lies with the party seeking to overcome it. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that in co-employee assault cases, "any nexus, however slender, between the motivation for the assault and the employment" is sufficient, and here, the co-employee relationship itself provides that nexus, especially in the absence of evidence of personal animosity.

Workers' Compensation LawDeath Benefits ClaimStatutory Presumption of CompensabilityCourse of EmploymentCo-employee AssaultUnwitnessed DeathSubstantial Evidence ReviewBoard's Factual DeterminationsNexus to EmploymentLack of Personal Animosity
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1978

Claim of Cheryl v. State

An appeal was filed from a Workers' Compensation Board decision which reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s decision. The Board found that a golf tournament was not employer-sponsored, attendance was voluntary, and employees used leave time. There was no employer control or financial contribution. Consequently, the Board concluded that the decedent's death did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence to support its findings and no essential nexus between the golf tournament and the employer.

Workers' Compensation AppealCourse of EmploymentEmployer SponsorshipVoluntary ActivityRecreational ActivityGolf TournamentEmployer ControlNexusDeath ClaimBoard Decision Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 1993

Claim of Robinson v. Village of Catskill Police Department

The claimant, a police officer employed by the Village of Catskill, sustained serious injuries when his wife shot him with his service revolver during a domestic dispute. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied his claim, ruling that the injuries had no nexus to his employment. The appeal court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the assault arose from purely personal differences and was intentionally inflicted. The court concluded that neither the involvement of the service weapon nor the fact that the claimant was on duty established a link to employment, thus denying workers’ compensation benefits.

Domestic DisputePolice OfficerService WeaponOn-Duty IncidentPersonal DifferencesNo Employment NexusWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionIntentional InjuryAppellate AffirmanceGreene County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Baskerville v. J.J. Keenan Construction Corp.

The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1990 and received workers’ compensation benefits. In 1993, the claimant re-injured his back while shoveling snow and filed for benefits, asserting a causal relationship to the earlier 1990 injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, determining that the 1993 injury was not related to the 1990 incident. This decision was appealed. The court affirmed the Board’s ruling, finding substantial evidence in the testimony of two physicians who examined the claimant, supporting the conclusion that there was no causal nexus between the two injuries.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceAppealSubstantial EvidencePhysician TestimonyNexusAffirmation1990 Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Blair v. Bailey

Claimant, an employee at New Laundromat, owned by Percival Bailey, was shot and paralyzed by Bailey's son. The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied benefits, but on full Board review, it was determined that an employer-employee relationship existed, and the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, leading to an award of benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship and that the assault had a sufficient nexus to employment. The court also found no error in the WCLJ's decision to sua sponte restore the case, as the ultimate determination considered only the initial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipAssaultCourse of EmploymentPersonal AnimosityCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 1979

Claim of Arrington v. Schneider

The Workers’ Compensation Board found that a building superintendent’s injuries, resulting from an assault by his brother on the employment premises, were compensable. The assault occurred during working hours over a dispute regarding janitorial duties and money, with the employer aware of the brother's prior assistance. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that there was substantial evidentiary support for the finding that the assault stemmed from work-connected differences rather than purely personal animosity. The court reiterated that any slender nexus between the assault's motivation and employment is sufficient to sustain an award of benefits, especially when the incident occurs on the employer's premises during work.

AssaultEmployment InjuryCompensabilityFactual QuestionEvidentiary SupportWork-connected DisputePremises LiabilityBuilding SuperintendentBrother DisputeAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wadsworth v. K-Mart Corp.

Claimant, an assistant store manager, sought workers' compensation benefits for psychological injuries after being assaulted while confronting a thief stealing her car from the employer's parking lot. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the injuries compensable. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the assault was personally motivated. The Appellate Division concluded that the statutory presumption of work-related injury was rebutted by substantial evidence of personal animosity, lacking a nexus between the assault and claimant's employment. Consequently, the Board's decision regarding compensability was reversed, and the claim was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationAssaultEmployment NexusPersonal AnimosityPsychological InjuriesStolen VehicleAppellate ReviewStatutory PresumptionArising Out of EmploymentCourse of Employment
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 6,116 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