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
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. ADJ15229971
Regular
Mar 17, 2023

GRANT ELLISON vs. CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration of an award to an employee injured by a COVID-19 vaccine. The Board found the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, citing the "dual purpose" rule where the employer strongly encouraged vaccination to reduce employee absences. The Board also applied the "personal convenience" doctrine, stating acts for comfort and convenience while at work are incidental to employment. Therefore, the employee's vaccine injury was deemed work-related, and the employer is liable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGrant EllisonCity of San BuenaventuraAthens AdministratorsCOVID-19 vaccinationarising out of employmentcourse of employmentdual purpose rulepersonal convenience doctrinework-related injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lomascolo v. OTTO OLDSMOBILE-CADILLAC. INC.

This case involves a defendant's motion for a protective order to preclude the plaintiff from using two documents at trial, alleging they were not disclosed previously. The plaintiff, who alleges sexual harassment and a hostile work environment under Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law, argued that the documents were solely for impeachment purposes and thus excluded from mandatory disclosure. The court analyzed whether the documents had a dual purpose (impeachment and substantive evidence) and reviewed circuit precedents, ultimately declining to completely preclude their use. Instead, the court applied judicial estoppel, ruling that the documents, which the plaintiff claimed were for impeachment to avoid sanctions, could only be used for impeachment purposes at trial.

Discovery DisputeProtective Order MotionEvidence PreclusionImpeachment UseSubstantive EvidenceRule 26(a) DisclosureRule 37(c)(1) SanctionsJudicial EstoppelSexual Harassment ClaimHostile Work Environment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re McLean Industries, Inc.

This case concerns U.S. Lines, Inc. (now Janus Industries), along with Mclean Industries, Inc. and First Colony Farms, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), and the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee (collectively, the "Movants"). They filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1986 and had a plan of reorganization confirmed in 1989, which relied on the preservation of net operating losses (NOLs). After the IRS announced proposed regulations in 1990 that could challenge the use of NOLs if a plan's principal purpose was tax evasion, the Movants sought a court order declaring that tax evasion was not the principal purpose of their plan. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) opposed, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the applicability of the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court denied the Movants' motion, holding that under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(d), only a governmental unit can initiate a tax avoidance motion, and the issue of tax liability based on proposed regulations was not a concrete controversy.

BankruptcyChapter 11Tax AvoidanceNet Operating Losses (NOLs)IRS RegulationsPlan ConfirmationPost-Confirmation MotionDeclaratory Judgment ActSubject Matter JurisdictionGovernmental Unit
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wright v. General Electric Co.

The claimant appealed decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board concerning the death of her husband, an employee of General Electric Company, who died in an automobile accident during a trip with both business and personal purposes. The Board found the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, awarding death benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence and precedent that a dual-purpose trip does not negate an employment connection. The court also referenced Workers’ Compensation Law, § 118, noting corroborating testimony and permission for travel.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentBusiness TravelPersonal TravelDeath BenefitsEmployment ScopeAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDual Purpose RuleInjury during Employment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1996

Stern v. United States

The plaintiffs, Sheldon and Sara Stern, initially sought a tax refund, arguing Sheldon Stern was an independent contractor for Allstate Insurance. After the IRS disallowed their claim, they filed an amended federal complaint, shifting their theory to a "dual status" as both employee and independent contractor. The government moved to dismiss, asserting the new theory diverged from their administrative claim, thereby eliminating subject matter jurisdiction under the variance doctrine. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, dismissing the amended complaint because the IRS had not adequately reviewed the "dual status" claim. The amended complaint was therefore dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Independent Contractor StatusDual Employment StatusTax RefundVariance DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionAmended ComplaintMotion to DismissFederal Tax LawIRSSovereign Immunity
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 1989

Matos v. Michele Depalma Enterprises, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal arising from a motor vehicle accident on January 11, 1986, involving an employee, Noel D. Guneratne, and plaintiffs Dawn F. Carey, Christina M. Chevere, and Stephanie Brazee. Plaintiffs sought damages for negligence and wrongful death, arguing the defendant employer was liable under respondeat superior because Guneratne, while driving to work with the employer's cash receipts, was acting within the scope of his employment. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that an employee commuting to work is generally not acting within the scope of employment. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that the "dual purpose" principle did not apply as the necessity for Guneratne's travel to work was not created by the business purpose of transporting cash, but rather by his regular commute, regardless of the receipts.

Respondeat SuperiorScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentMotor Vehicle AccidentCommuting EmployeeNegligence DamagesWrongful Death ClaimAppellate Court DecisionDual Purpose DoctrineEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1996

Del Vecchio v. State

The claimants, Salvatore and Karen Del Vecchio, appealed an order from the Court of Claims which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim. Salvatore Del Vecchio was injured while rescuing a co-worker who fell into Jamaica Bay during bridge construction, arguing his back injuries were a result of the incident caused by unsecured planking and lack of safety devices. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that Labor Law § 240 (1) provides "exceptional protection" for specific gravity-related accidents (falling from height, struck by falling object) and does not extend to a rescuer like Del Vecchio, who did not sustain a direct gravity-related injury. The majority concluded that the "danger invites rescue" doctrine is not applicable to Labor Law § 240 (1) claims due to the statute's absolute liability and limited scope, which should not be expanded. A dissenting opinion argued that the doctrine should apply to workers injured while rescuing someone imperiled by a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation, emphasizing the statute's purpose of protecting workers and imposing strict liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Danger Invites Rescue DoctrineAbsolute LiabilityGravity-Related InjurySummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentElevated WorksiteProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Star Reinsurance Corp. v. Continental Insurance

The court addresses the novel legal issue of "preindemnification" and the application of the "antisubrogation rule" in cases involving disputes among insurance carriers over work site injuries. It rejects the "preindemnification" doctrine, which contractors asserted would prioritize owners' insurance coverage over their own, citing lack of support from contractual language, premium disparities, or common-law indemnification principles. However, the court affirms and extends the narrower antisubrogation rule, preventing an insurer from seeking recovery from its own insured for the same risk, even when multiple policies are involved. This rule is applied to bar subrogation claims in the cases of Prince and Valentin, but not in North Star due to specific policy exclusions.

Insurance LawIndemnificationSubrogationPreindemnification DoctrineAntisubrogation RuleWorkers' CompensationGeneral Contractors' Liability (GCL) InsuranceOwners' Contractors' Protective (OCP) InsuranceVicarious LiabilityContractual Obligation
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,202 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