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
Sep 01, 2005

Claim of Gutierrez v. Courtyard by Marriott

The claimant's daughter, a guest services agent at the Courtyard by Marriott hotel, was found murdered in an employee restroom while on duty. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge granted the claimant's application for death benefits, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed this decision. The court affirmed, holding that the death occurred during the course of employment and arose out of employment, citing the boyfriend's jealousy over the decedent's interactions with hotel customers as the necessary nexus. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying an adjournment pending a criminal trial or in excluding unreliable hearsay evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsArising out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentWorkplace MurderPersonal AnimosityStatutory PresumptionHearsay Evidence AdmissibilityAdjournment DiscretionWorkers’ Compensation Board Appeal
References
14
Case No. ADJ8365866
Regular
May 02, 2014

CESAR MARTIN vs. STUDIO CHAMELEON LLC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant's injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The Board found the applicant's stop at a friend's house to retrieve a phone charger benefited the employer by enabling continued communication. Additionally, the auto accident occurred after the applicant left his friend's house and was en route back to the employer's premises on a normal route, thus concluding any deviation. The Board also clarified the legal distinction between "scope of employment" (a tort concept) and "course of employment" (a workers' compensation term of art).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationdeniedcourse of employmentscope of employmentmotor vehicle accidentmaterial deviationemployer's instructionsapplicant's benefitpersonal comfort
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anowai v. Holiday Inn

Claimant, a security officer, was struck on the head by falling facade debris from an adjacent building shortly after completing his shift at a Manhattan hotel. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, deeming it within the area of egress. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the accident did not occur as an incident or risk of employment because it happened on a public street, in front of a separate building, and involved a hazard outside the employer's control. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to overturn its factual findings regarding the nexus between the accident and the claimant's employment. The court reiterated that while risks near the employment situs can merge with employment risks, the Board's discretionary determination of such risks should be respected.

Accidental InjuryScope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleEgress and IngressStreet RiskPublic SidewalkEmployer ControlFactual FindingsAppellate ReviewSecurity Officer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 1984

Claim of Bennett v. G. O. Dairies, Inc.

A claimant was injured by gunshots after parking her car across the street from her workplace, where she regularly drove the store manager. She testified that she was paid from 7:00 a.m., and her transportation services for the manager were known and beneficial to the employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment, citing the presumption under Workers’ Compensation Law Section 21(1). The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing she had not commenced employment duties or reached the premises. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample basis to conclude her activities were job-related and that the presumption was not rebutted.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentSpecial Errand ExceptionPresumption of CausationArising Out Of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentInjury en routeShooting IncidentEmployer BenefitPaid Travel Time
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McLeod v. Ground Handling, Inc.

This case addresses whether an accident occurring on a public street, away from the immediate place of employment but near the workplace, arose out of and in the course of employment. The court examined the 'gray area' where risks of street travel merge with employment risks, emphasizing the need for a special hazard at the accident point and a close association of the access route with the premises. The Board found no special hazard on the county road, which was used by the general public and not controlled by the employer. Consequently, the accident was deemed a risk shared by the general public, not related to the claimant's employment. The decision affirming the Board's finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment was upheld.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentOff-premises AccidentSpecial Hazard RuleStreet RiskGoing and Coming RulePublic RoadAccess RouteEmployer ControlAppellate Review
References
5
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 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

the Claim of Picinich v. Cayuga Crimmins

The case involves an appeal from decisions by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which awarded death benefits to the widow and three minor children of a deceased employee. The employee, a construction worker, was found dead by electrocution at his New York City work site shortly after his midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift ended. A referee and the board determined his death arose out of and in the course of his employment. Appellants contended the death did not arise out of or in the course of employment. The court disagreed, finding substantial evidence that the death occurred in the course of employment, triggering a presumption under Workmen's Compensation Law § 21 that it also arose out of employment. Evidence suggesting a personal pursuit was deemed speculative and insufficient to rebut the presumption. Consequently, the board’s determination was affirmed.

Electrocution DeathWork-related AccidentCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentStatutory PresumptionDeath BenefitsWidow and Minor ChildrenAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceSalvaging Cable
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Crutshank v. Gypsum Deck Associates, Inc.

The employer and its insurance carrier appealed a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision from November 30, 1970, which awarded death benefits to the claimant. The Board found the decedent was an outside worker with latitude in his work, the employer supplied and maintained the car, and there was no conclusive evidence of deviation from employment. The accident occurred during snowy, hazardous driving conditions. The Board concluded the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and was not solely due to intoxication. The appellate court affirmed the decision, citing precedents that an unwitnessed accident occurring in the course of employment is presumed to arise out of employment, and noted no conclusive evidence of alcoholic intoxication causing the accident.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsUnwitnessed AccidentIntoxication DefenseCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentOutside WorkerSlippery Roads
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cortijo v. Ilfin Corp.

A decedent, employed as a building superintendent, was found dead from a 12-gauge shotgun wound on his employer's premises during working hours. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the unexplained death, occurring on the employer's property and during working hours, raised a presumption of compensability under section 21 of the Workers' Compensation Law. This presumption led to the conclusion that the death arose out of and in the course of employment, justifying an award of death benefits to the claimant. The Board found that police testimony regarding the decedent's prior illegal activities was insufficient to rebut this statutory presumption. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding them supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPresumption of CompensabilityUnexplained DeathEmployment InjuryOn-Premises DeathStatutory PresumptionRebuttal of PresumptionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 11,336 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