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

Perez v. Victory Motor Inn

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying benefits for injuries sustained in a workplace altercation. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits, but the Board reversed, finding the assault unrelated to employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the assault arose from personal hostilities between the claimant and a coworker, stemming from a non-work-related assumption about the coworker's relationship with their boss, and thus did not arise out of or in the course of her employment.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsWorkplace AssaultPersonal AnimosityCourse of EmploymentAccidental InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate AffirmationSubstantial Evidence ReviewClaim DenialCoworker Dispute
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00044 [212 AD3d 419]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2023

Sakthivel v. Industrious Staffing Co., LLC

Plaintiff Suba Sakthivel appealed an order dismissing her complaint against Industrious Staffing Company, LLC. Sakthivel, proceeding pro se, alleged unlawful termination based on complaints about safety violations following a coworker assault, claiming protection under Labor Law §§ 215 and 740. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that Sakthivel, as a staff accountant, was not covered by Labor Law § 200, which applies to construction workers. Her Labor Law § 740 claim failed because a coworker assault does not meet the criteria for a "substantial and specific danger to public health or safety." Additionally, her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was dismissed for not alleging conduct "utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

Employment LawRetaliation ClaimWrongful TerminationSafe WorkplaceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAppellate ReviewCPLR 3211 DismissalLabor Law ViolationsCoworker AssaultStaff Accountant
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2009

Claim of Cuthbert v. Panorama Windows Ltd.

Claimant, a purchasing clerk, sought workers' compensation benefits after being assaulted by a coworker. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, finding the assault originated from work-related differences. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, concluding there was a sufficient nexus between the employment relationship and the assault, despite a history of personal animosity and racial slurs between the individuals. The Board relied on the plant manager's credible testimony, which indicated the claimant's workplace attitude created tension. The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in their determination of a work-related nexus for the assault.

AssaultWorkplace InjuryWorkers' CompensationEmployment NexusCoworker DisputeRacial DiscriminationBoard AffirmationAppellate ReviewCredibilityPlant Manager Testimony
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2005

Hunt v. State

The claimant, arrested for grand larceny in 1998, was unable to post bail and was sexually assaulted by another inmate while in the Manhattan Detention Center. Despite a court directive for protective custody on September 18, 1998, state court officers failed to properly record this order on the securing order. Consequently, the claimant was returned to general population and assaulted again on September 21. The Court of Claims initially dismissed the claimant's action for damages against the State. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the court officers' failure to record the protective custody order was a breach of a ministerial duty, thereby establishing state liability. The case has been remanded for a trial to determine the damages for the September 21 assault.

Inmate AssaultProtective CustodyMinisterial NegligenceState LiabilityCourt Officer DutySecuring OrderDamages RemandAppellate ReversalCorrectional Facility NegligencePrisoner Safety
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilson v. Mills

Claimant, a general mechanic, filed for workers' compensation benefits after being struck in the face by a coworker. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found the assault arose from work-related differences, crediting the claimant's testimony. The Board concluded there was a sufficient nexus between the assault and employment, despite elements of personal animosity and allegations of harassment. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed the decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, emphasizing that the test for compensability requires a work-related origin for the assault, which is a question of fact for the Board.

Workers' CompensationAssaultWork-Related InjuryNexus to EmploymentPersonal AnimosityEmployer LiabilityBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationGeneral Mechanic
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosen v. First Manhattan Bank

This case concerns a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits following a decedent's fatal assault by a coworker. The primary legal question addressed is whether the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment, considering the assault occurred in a building stairwell not directly on the employer's premises. Evidence showed the altercation initiated in the building lobby upon the decedent's arrival for work and involved the customary elevator route to the employer's office. The Court found substantial evidence to affirm the conclusion that the assault was rooted in events starting at or about the employer's premises, thereby arising in the course of employment. Furthermore, the Workers’ Compensation Board was within its authority to reject claims of purely personal animosity, given the work-related nature of the dispute (a loan condoned by the employer) and the lack of social ties between the assailant and victim. The order of the Appellate Division, which had affirmed the benefits, was ultimately affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsAssault in EmploymentCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentPremises Rule ExceptionCoworker DisputePersonal Animosity DefenseStatutory PresumptionFact-Finding ProvinceAppellate Division Affirmation
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05011 [231 AD3d 1262]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

Matter of Lebeau v. Meet Caregivers Inc.

Claimant Okina Lebeau, a certified nurse assistant, filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging injuries to her right leg and knee from an assault by a coworker. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the injury did not arise out of employment. Claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, crediting the coworker's and manager's testimonies over claimant's. The Board determined that no physical altercation occurred and that the claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, a finding supported by substantial evidence.

Employment InjuryAssault ClaimCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardWorkplace IncidentClaimant TestimonyEmployer InvestigationFactual Determination
References
8
Case No. CV-23-0964
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Okina Lebeau

Claimant Okina Lebeau appealed decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied her claim for benefits related to an alleged workplace assault. Lebeau, a certified nurse assistant, claimed a coworker injured her right leg and knee by hitting her with a chair in November 2021. The Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, concluding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, primarily by crediting the coworker's and manager's testimonies over Lebeau's regarding the alleged physical altercation. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, finding its factual and credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the denial of workers' compensation benefits was upheld.

Workers' CompensationAssaultCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceArising Out Of EmploymentCourse Of EmploymentFactual DeterminationsNurse AssistantInjury ClaimBoard Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Slade v. Perkins

The case involves an appeal on a shortened record from decisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The central issue was whether the claimant, a demolition worker, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment when he was assaulted at his job site in New York City. The claimant testified the attack was unprovoked, while a coworker stated the claimant had propositioned a passing girl, who later returned with the assailant. The Board found, based on credible evidence, that the assault constituted an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that issues of fact and witness credibility are for the Board to determine. A dissenting opinion argued that merely sustaining an injury at the employment site does not automatically make it compensable, especially if the claimant's actions provoked the incident.

AssaultDemolition WorkerCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentCredibility of WitnessesWorkmen's Compensation LawBoard FindingsAppellate ReviewUnprovoked AttackCompensable Injury
References
7
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01748 [225 AD3d 1100]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2024

Matter of Spillers v. Health & Hosp. Corp.

Claimant Mark K. Spillers, a senior rehabilitation counselor, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision disallowing his claim for a causally-related psychological injury. Spillers alleged depression, psychosis, and PTSD from a December 2013 verbal assault by a coworker, but he had a prior established claim from 2007 for physical and consequential psychological injuries. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the 2015 claim, finding Spillers' account of the 2013 incident not credible and that the dispute did not amount to a workplace accident. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, deferring to the WCLJ's credibility findings. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the December 2013 incident was an ordinary coworker dispute, not an extraordinary workplace accident under the Workers' Compensation Law, and that Spillers was afforded due process.

Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryWorkplace StressCredibility DeterminationDue ProcessVerbal AssaultCoworker DisputeAppellate ReviewCausationPermanent Partial Disability
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 590 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