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 Craig v. Jefferson Auto Painting Co.

The claimant, an automobile sander and polisher, sustained eye injuries when a coemployee threw a chemical solution during an assault. The incident occurred after the claimant refused to participate in a false accusation against a foreman, leading to threats during working hours and the actual assault immediately after work, just outside the employer's premises. The Workers' Compensation Board determined the assault was work-connected and within the reasonable time and space limits of employment, thus finding the resultant disability compensable. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, challenging the applicability of the proximity rule and the determination that the incident occurred in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, relying on the 'continued altercation rule' which allows recovery for work-connected quarrels extending beyond employment limits, and emphasized that an employee remains in the course of employment until a suitable opportunity to leave the workplace is provided.

Workers' CompensationAssaultWork-Connected InjuryEmployment ScopeContinued Altercation RulePremises LiabilityCoemployee MisconductDisability BenefitsAppealJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1991

Davis v. Alpha Apple, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant's decedent sustained an accidental injury during employment and awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer appealed this decision, arguing that the record lacked adequate support for the Board's finding. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that whether an activity falls within the course of employment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve. The court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's determination, noting that the decedent was directed by a supervisor to perform an activity not for personal gain, with the employer's knowledge, and died as a result of an injury sustained while using the employer's equipment. The court also highlighted that even if an activity primarily benefits a supervisor privately, an injury sustained during that work may still be compensable.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewSupervisor's DirectionEmployer's EquipmentCompensable InjuryBoard Decision Affirmed
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Little v. Gaines Electrical Contracting, Inc.

Claimant, an electrician apprentice, suffered a ventral hernia at work and informed his employer. The employer's president, David Gaines, allegedly advised him to take a layoff and use health insurance instead of filing a workers' compensation claim to avoid hurting the company's insurance. After surgery and medical clearance, the claimant attempted to return to work but was told no work was available. Upon discovering the employer used an independent contractor for work he could have done, the claimant filed for workers' compensation and a discrimination complaint under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, leading to his formal termination. The Workers' Compensation Board found the employer guilty of retaliatory discrimination, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal, citing substantial evidence of a causal nexus between the claimant's efforts to obtain benefits and the employer's retaliatory conduct. The court found no basis to disturb the Board's findings or its denial of the employer's request to reopen the hearing.

Workers' Compensation DiscriminationRetaliationWrongful TerminationWorkplace Injury ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 120Board Decision ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCausal NexusCredibility AssessmentDenial of Motion to Reopen
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russell v. Gaines

Justice Wesley dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) should bar the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The dissent contends that defendant Gaines, as an executive employee of Gaines Electrical and owner of the property where the injury occurred, was acting within the scope of his employment and was a coemployee of the plaintiff. Citing precedent like Heritage v Van Patten, the dissent emphasizes that Gaines had indistinguishable duties for safety precautions, and the plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits. Therefore, the dissent concludes that coemployee immunity should apply, prohibiting the majority's outcome.

Workers' Compensation LawLabor LawCoemployee ImmunityScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityCorporate EmployerExecutive EmployeeDissenting OpinionNew York Law
References
4
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Waterview Nursing Home

A 63-year-old nurse’s aide sustained work-related injuries and her workers’ compensation case was established. She was offered a light-duty position by her employer, but her daughter informed the employer that claimant could not work. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently concluded that by rejecting the offer, claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from employment and denied her further benefits. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence regarding the specifics of the light-duty position, its requirements, duties, or suitability for the claimant's medical limitations. The court held that without such proof, the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal was not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLight-Duty AssignmentVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketMedical LimitationsSubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittiturNurse's AideEmployment Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lippman v. Public Employment Relations Board

This proceeding involved the Unified Court System (UCS) challenging a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found that UCS violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally issuing an administrative order in December 1997 that amended regulations (22 NYCRR part 108) related to court reporters' fees for selling transcripts to litigants. The court reviewed PERB's findings that the new page-rate guidelines and a mandatory "Minute Agreement Form" constituted an improper practice by altering terms of employment. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the page-rate guidelines actually limited reporters' compensation. Furthermore, while the Agreement Form did alter some aspects of employment, its impact was minimal and outweighed by UCS's broader mission to ensure understandable, uniform, timely, and affordable access to justice. Therefore, the court annulled PERB's determination and granted the petition.

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lashlee v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling

The Special Disability Fund appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's average weekly wage calculation. The claimant, injured while employed by Pepsi-Cola, also had concurrent employment with Mid-Hudson Limousine Service, Inc. and Robert H. Auchmoody Funeral Homes, Inc. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) included Auchmoody as a concurrent employer, increasing the claimant's average weekly wage. The Fund argued that Auchmoody should not be considered a "covered" employer because there was no proof of workers' compensation insurance. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that "covered" employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) refers to an employer subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law, irrespective of whether they actually carried an insurance policy, and that the law must be liberally construed in favor of employees.

Workers’ CompensationConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageCovered EmploymentIndependent ContractorSpecial Disability FundInsurance PolicyLiberal ConstructionAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a professional employer organization (PEO) may be a proper claimant under a labor and materials surety bond. Plaintiff Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a PEO, provided employee leasing services to Team Star Contractors, Inc. for a construction project, covering payroll, taxes, and insurance. When Team Star failed to pay, Tri-State filed a claim with the surety, Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., which was dismissed by the District Court. The New York Court of Appeals determined that a PEO's primary role as an administrative services provider and payroll financier creates a presumption that it does not provide labor for the purpose of a payment bond claim. The Court found that Tri-State failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating sufficient direction and control over the workers. Consequently, the Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. is not a proper claimant under the surety bond in the circumstances presented.

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a June 16, 2009, determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB's determination reversed an earlier administrative law judge's decision, finding that the NYCTA had committed an improper labor practice by unilaterally implementing new standards for off-duty secondary employment without negotiating with the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100. PERB directed the NYCTA to make whole certain employees and subsequently filed a cross-petition to enforce its order. The court found that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence, noting that an employer's restriction on nonworking time is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Taylor Law. Consequently, the court confirmed PERB's determination, denied the NYCTA's petition, dismissed the proceeding on the merits, and granted PERB's cross-petition for enforcement of its remedial order.

Public EmploymentLabor RelationsCollective BargainingImproper Labor PracticeOff-Duty Secondary EmploymentCivil Service LawTaylor LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Law
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 10,334 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