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
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
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald-Besheme v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.

Claimant, an operations specialist, was injured in a fall in March 2003 and subsequently filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The employer failed to file a notice of controversy within the 25-day statutory period after receiving the notice of indexing on August 1, 2003. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the employer's notice untimely, precluding the employer from contesting the employer-employee relationship or that the injury arose out of employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this determination, as the employer did not demonstrate good cause for the delay. The employer appealed, but the court affirmed the Board’s decision.

Late Notice of ControversyEmployer LiabilityTimeliness of FilingAppeal DecisionAdministrative ReviewStatutory ComplianceDiscretionary PowersAbsence of Good CausePreclusion of DefenseWorkplace Injury Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1983

Claim of Hughes v. New York Telephone Co.

A line foreman, though not on duty, was requested by his employer to check a report of a broken pole. While preparing to use a company car parked in his driveway for this task, he sustained an injury to his mouth after stepping on a rake. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that this injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer appealed, arguing that, as a matter of law, the injury did not arise from employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, applying the 'special errand' exception to the general rule regarding risks of travel to and from work. It concluded that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentOff-Duty WorkEmployee InjuryAppellate ReviewAffirmationOccupational HazardWorkplace Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1979

Gessino v. D'Andraia

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a decision finding that a claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The claimant sustained an injury while assisting the employer’s brother, under the belief that these activities were at the implied request and for the benefit of the employer. The Board concluded that based on credible evidence and the claimant's testimony, the injury constituted an accidental injury within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryBoard DecisionClaimant BeliefEmployer BenefitSubstantial EvidenceAppeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Young v. New York State Police

Claimant, a State Trooper, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving to work in Westchester County. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, given she was on call 24 hours a day and within her assigned geographical area, and awarded benefits. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, emphasizing that accidents during commuting typically do not arise out of employment unless there is a sufficient causal nexus established by employer control. The court found insufficient evidence of the employer's control over the claimant's activities at the time of the accident to establish this nexus, distinguishing the case from precedents where such control was present. Consequently, the claim for workers' compensation benefits was dismissed.

Commuting AccidentCourse of EmploymentArising Out Of EmploymentEmployer ControlState TrooperMotor Vehicle AccidentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal NexusAppellate ReviewClaim Dismissed
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jennette v. Canon

Claimant, a customer service representative, was instructed by her employer to go home and change into more appropriate attire due to a company dress code violation, despite having worn the same suit previously without incident. While returning home to change, she was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained injuries. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her accidental injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, considering her trip a "special errand" for the employer. This decision was affirmed by the court.

Dress CodeSpecial ErrandMotor Vehicle AccidentAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentWorkers' CompensationAppeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Place v. Ryder

Claimant, who received workers' compensation benefits from a self-insured employer, settled a third-party action. A dispute arose regarding whether the employer had waived its statutory offset rights against the claimant's net recovery from the third-party action, as there was no written agreement. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, finding that the self-insured employer had reserved its offset rights. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer's attorney's correspondence provided substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that offset rights were explicitly reserved.

Workers' CompensationOffset RightsThird-Party SettlementEmployer's LienStatutory WaiverAttorney CorrespondenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardNew York
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,550 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