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 Harford v. Widensky's, Inc.

Patricia Harford, a sales clerk, died in an automobile accident in front of her employer's store. The central issue was whether her death occurred during the course of employment, specifically if her lunch break, during which she was allegedly on a coffee errand for her employer, constituted an interruption of employment. The Workers' Compensation Board found the accident compensable, reasoning that the errand and the employer-convenient lunch break maintained her within the scope of employment. The appellate court affirmed, upholding the Board's reliance on a vice-president's statement despite formal evidence rules and finding substantial evidence for the Board's determination that the lunch arrangement did not interrupt employment.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentLunch BreakSpecial ErrandCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawCompensabilityAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Carney v. Regal Dry Cleaners

A front counter supervisor for a dry cleaning business sustained injuries in an automobile accident while on her lunch break. She had offered to pick up lunch for her coworkers, and allegedly her supervisor asked her to pick up lunch for him. While returning to work with both lunches, she was involved in an accident and filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, finding her injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment as her activities did not constitute a 'special errand' for the employer. The appellate court affirmed this decision, noting no evidence that the supervisor affirmatively solicited the lunch purchase, and that the claimant was already planning a personal errand.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentLunch BreakSpecial Errand ExceptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentPersonal ErrandEmployer BenefitSolicitationAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1982

Claim of Borelli v. New York Telephone Co.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision dated July 9, 1982. The claimant sustained injuries after falling on a sidewalk upon exiting her employer's premises for lunch. The Board found the injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. The employer appealed, arguing the lunch break removed the incident from workers' compensation coverage. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the "gray area" rule, noting the accident occurred in close proximity to the workplace on a normal route of ingress/egress with a special hazard. Additionally, the employer, through its agent Tishman Management and Leasing, was responsible for the sidewalk's maintenance.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentIngress and EgressSidewalk FallPremises LiabilityGray Area RuleEmployer ResponsibilityAppellate ReviewInjury SustainedLunch Break
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2000

Stein v. Beaver Concrete Breaking Co.

Stuart Stein appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to Beaver Concrete Breaking Co., Inc., dismissing his personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing that a person can have both a general and special employer for Workers' Compensation Law purposes. Since Stein received workers' compensation benefits from his special employer, JAB Construction, Inc., and Beaver was determined to be his general employer, Beaver was shielded from the lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, and 29 [6].

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTort LawNew York Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 26, 2003

Claim of Gabriele v. Educational Bus Transportation, Inc.

The claimant in this case sought workers' compensation benefits after being struck by an automobile during an unpaid lunch break. The incident occurred while he was crossing a public street, having just cashed his paycheck and intending to proceed to a deli. Although a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits under a 'dual purpose errand' theory, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling that the injury happened outside the scope of his employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's activities ceased to be work-related and became personal once he left the bank, thus making neither the dual purpose nor special errand exceptions applicable.

Workers' CompensationLunch Break InjuryDual Purpose ErrandScope of EmploymentPersonal ErrandOff-Premises InjuryAccidental InjuryBoard DecisionJudicial ReviewNew York Law
References
7
Case No. ADJ9942537
Regular
Dec 09, 2018

ANGELO RIOS vs. RUSHER AIR CONDITIONING, INSURANCE CO OF THE WEST SAN DIEGO

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained during his unpaid lunch break. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the prior decision that denied the claim. The Board found that the applicant's injury did not fall under the "going and coming" rule due to evidence that he was performing work-related tasks during his break, including taking work calls and researching for a bid. Furthermore, the Board determined the injury likely occurred after the unpaid lunch period concluded, extending into a paid break.

Going and coming ruledual purpose exceptioncourse of employmentscope of employmentAOE/COEpersonal comfort doctrinepaid breaksunpaid lunch breakassaultthird-party assault
References
11
Case No. ADJ7336300
Regular
Feb 19, 2014

EMANUEL AGUILAR vs. BHS CORRUGATED NORTH AMERICA, INC.; THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding of injury AOE/COE for Emanuel Aguilar. The Board found that Aguilar's injury, sustained in a rental car returning from an unpaid lunch break, was not compensable under the "going and coming rule" and its "lunch rule" extension. The WCAB determined that the employer's provision of the rental car to a co-employee, even if for business benefit, did not extend coverage to Aguilar during his personal, off-premises lunch. Commissioner Brass dissented, arguing the injury should be compensable due to employer benefit and the liberal construction of workers' compensation laws.

AOE/COEgoing and coming rulelunch ruleemployer's premisesrental carunpaid lunch breakmotor vehicle accidentspecial mission exceptioncompensabilityPetition for Reconsideration
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. City of Rochester

Claimant, a parking monitor, appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board which denied her benefits for an accidental injury. The injury occurred when she fell on a wet floor while returning from an unpaid lunch break. The Board ruled the accident did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, a decision which was upheld on appeal. The court found that because the claimant had discretion over her lunch arrangements and the employer gained no benefit from her choice of restaurant, the incident fell outside the scope of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial of benefits.

Workers' CompensationLunch Break InjuryScope of EmploymentAccidentOff-DutyPersonal DiscretionEmployer AuthorityAppellate ReviewBenefit DenialInjury Claim
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Roggero v. Frontier Insurance Group

Claimant, an insurance underwriter, was denied workers' compensation benefits after sustaining injuries from a fall in a pothole while on an unpaid lunch break and off-premises to smoke. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that her injury was the result of a personal act and not in the course of her employment. The appellate court affirmed this decision, noting that injuries on a public street outside working hours are generally not considered to have occurred in the course of employment. The court also found that the risk of the pothole was shared generally by the public and her activities were personal in nature.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryLunch BreakPersonal ActPublic StreetPotholeSmoking BreakAppellate Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 21,063 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