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

Wausau Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Potter

This is a workers' compensation case where the jury found that Kenneth Potter sustained a compensable injury, was totally and permanently incapacitated, and was entitled to maximum weekly benefits. Appellant Wausau denied the injury occurred in the course and scope of employment while travelling. The core issue revolves around the 'coming and going' rule and the 'dual purpose' doctrine for injuries sustained during travel for both employer's business and personal affairs. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on the definition of 'injury in the course of employment,' which effectively precluded consideration of the dual purpose doctrine. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationCompensabilityDisabilityWage RateHardshipCourse of EmploymentDual Purpose DoctrineComing and Going RuleJury InstructionsAppellate Review
References
9
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tramel v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Suzanne Renee Tramel was injured in an auto accident while traveling to work, having potentially made a stop at a bank for her employer beforehand. She and her husband, Rory Tramel, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. They argued that Suzanne's injuries were compensable under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, citing the 'special mission' and 'dual purpose' doctrines. The court reviewed TEX.REV. CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 8309, sec. 1b, noting that injuries during travel are generally not compensable unless specific exceptions apply. The court concluded that Suzanne was not on a 'special mission' because her trip from home to work, even with a bank stop, was a regular commute. Additionally, the 'dual purpose' doctrine was not met as the accident occurred on a route she would have taken regardless of her employer's business. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that her injury was not compensable and thus dismissing claims for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, Texas Insurance Code violations, and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act violations.

Summary Judgment AppealSpecial Mission DoctrineDual Purpose DoctrineCourse of EmploymentTexas Insurance Code ViolationsDeceptive Trade Practices ActAuto Accident InjuriesCommuting Rule ExceptionStatutory InterpretationAppellate Affirmation
References
7
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

American Home Assurance Co. v. Fabela

Reynaldo Fabela, a pilot for Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., was injured in a collision with a cow while commuting to work in November 1979. A jury awarded him $55,410.09 in worker's compensation, finding his injuries were sustained in the course of employment. The American Home Assurance Company appealed, arguing insufficient evidence. The appellate court examined whether Fabela's travel fell under exceptions to the general rule that commuting injuries are not compensable, specifically if he was furthering his employer's business. Despite arguments of being 'on call' and saving company expenses, Fabela admitted his trip was solely personal, failing to meet the 'dual purpose rule.' Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Fabela take nothing.

worker's compensationcourse of employmentdual purpose rulecommuting accidentemployer's businesspersonal affairson-callTexas lawappellate reviewjury verdict
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Protection Insurance Co. v. Leordeanu

Liana Leordeanu, a pharmaceutical sales representative, was injured in a car accident while traveling home after a business dinner, during which she intended to stop at a storage unit for work materials and then complete paperwork at her home office. Her claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied by American Protection Insurance Company, the carrier for her employer, Schering Plough, Inc. Although a jury initially found in favor of Leordeanu, the appellate court reversed this decision. Applying the "dual purpose rule" from the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, the court determined that Leordeanu's travel had both personal and business purposes. Ultimately, the court found insufficient evidence to prove that her travel would not have occurred without the business purpose, concluding that her injury was therefore not compensable under the course and scope of employment.

Dual Purpose RuleWorkers' Compensation ActCourse and Scope of EmploymentCompensable InjuryTravel for WorkPersonal TravelBusiness PurposeTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReversalInsurance Liability
References
14
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Confer

Patricia Confer, widow of Dr. Ronald Confer, sought workers' compensation death benefits after Dr. Confer died in a car accident. She alleged he was in the course and scope of his employment, intending to purchase computer supplies for his employer, Texas Educational Foundation, before heading home. After an initial favorable ruling was reversed by an appeals panel, Mrs. Confer successfully sued in district court, where a jury found in her favor. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, the appellant, challenged the verdict, citing insufficient evidence, erroneous exclusion of testimony, and an improper attorney's fees award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the "dual purpose rule" to uphold the jury's finding that Dr. Confer was on a business errand at the time of the accident and finding no reversible errors in the trial court's other rulings.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse and Scope of EmploymentDual Purpose RuleAutomobile AccidentEvidentiary RulingAttorney's FeesTexas Labor CodeSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. ADJ10761099
Regular
Apr 06, 2020

TANYA WARD vs. SARTI ENTERPRISES, LLC, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant injured by a car while investigating a disturbance on employer property after her shift. The defendant argued the injury was not compensable due to the "going and coming rule," asserting the applicant was not acting within the scope of employment. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the injury industrial. The Board reasoned that the applicant's investigation conferred a direct benefit to the employer, fitting the "dual purpose" exception to the going and coming rule.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryFront Desk ManagerRight ShoulderRight ElbowUpper ExtremitiesGoing and Coming RuleDual Purpose ExceptionIndustrial CausationEmployer Benefit
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1997

Claim of Coningsby v. New York State Department of Corrections

Claimant, a correction officer in Cayuga County, sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while driving to work after purchasing lunch. Despite being in uniform and near his workplace, he was not reimbursed for commute time, nor was he required to travel in his personal vehicle or wear his uniform while commuting. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied benefits, ruling the accident did not occur in the course of his employment. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding an insufficient connection between the accident and claimant's work, rejecting arguments of a special errand or dual purpose given the general rule that commuting accidents are not compensable.

Workers' CompensationCommuting AccidentCourse of EmploymentSpecial ErrandDual PurposeCorrection OfficerDenied BenefitsAffirmed DecisionNew York LawAppellate Division
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 11,390 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