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
Sep 25, 1979

Claim of Diaz v. Plaza Hotel

The claimant, a 52-year-old painter, suffered a left foot injury on April 14, 1978, after falling on a stairway at the Plaza Hotel while leaving work. This stairway was the sole method of ingress and egress for employees. The Workers' Compensation Board found that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, entitling the claimant to safe ingress and egress. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence to support its findings. Costs were awarded to the Workers' Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationWorkplace InjuryIngress/EgressEmployment AccidentPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewBoard AffirmationStairway Fall
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vanoni v. New York State Gas & Electric Corp.

This case addresses a motion for summary judgment concerning liability under Labor Law section 240. The plaintiff, an ironworker, was injured when he stepped from a scaffold onto a permanent coal conveyor, which he used for egress after installing a fire wall that blocked his original path on the scaffold. The core issue is whether the statute applies when an otherwise safe scaffold lacks safe egress, particularly if the egress path is a permanent structure used as an alternative to scaffolding. The court emphasized that the statute is to be liberally construed to protect workers, and implicit in the requirement for safe scaffolding is the provision for safe access and egress between work areas. Finding that the use of the coal conveyor as an egress route was foreseeable, and no alternative safety measures were taken, the court granted the motion for summary judgment as to liability, concluding that the owner or contractor failed to provide necessary safety devices.

Labor Law 240Scaffold SafetyWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentLiabilityEgressConstruction AccidentIronworkerForeseeabilitySafety Devices
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boston v. Medical Services for Women

Claimant, a medical secretary, sustained serious injuries from an acid attack while leaving her workplace, en route to a parking garage. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant's injury was compensable, finding it occurred within the precincts of employment, as the route was a usual means of ingress and egress. The employer failed to provide adequate proof of a personal motive for the attack. Subsequently, the Board's decision and amended decision were affirmed on appeal.

Acid AttackCompensable InjuryIngress and EgressEmployment PrecinctsEmployer LiabilityAppellate AffirmationPersonal Motive DefenseMedical Secretary InjuryWorkplace AssaultBoard Ruling
References
0
Case No. ADJ9405272
Regular
Feb 03, 2015

JACQUELINE LOTT vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning a prior decision that barred the applicant's claim under the going and coming rule. The Board found the applicant sustained an industrial injury on March 19, 2014, while employed as an administrative assistant. The injury occurred as she slipped and fell in a parking structure while on an unpaid lunch break, on the shortest route from her office to a snack bar. The Board determined this incident fell within the "reasonable margin of time and space" for ingress and egress from the employer's premises.

going and coming ruleindustrial injuryworkers' compensationadministrative assistantoffice complexparking structureunpaid lunch breakingress and egresspremises line rulecompensable
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1996

Claim of Arana v. Hillside Manor-Nursing Center

Claimant, an employee of Hillside Manor-Nursing Center, was injured when she fell on the sidewalk outside her workplace while leaving. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision, ruling the injury occurred within the precincts of her employment and that she was entitled to safe ingress and egress. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed this decision. The court, citing precedent that going to or coming from work on employer premises is generally an incident of employment, affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment.

Accidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentIngress and EgressEmployer PremisesSlip and FallWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewLeaving WorkSubstantial EvidenceWork-Related Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gherardi v. City of New York

The court addresses the scope of a contractor's obligation under New York Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically focusing on what constitutes "constructing" and "alteration" activities. It clarifies that extensive wiring installation on multiple floors of a public school qualifies as an "alteration," thereby triggering the protective provisions of the statute. Additionally, the decision confirms that the statute's protection extends to areas like entrance ramps used for ingress, egress, and material delivery, even if not the immediate work area. The court emphasizes that the instrumentality causing injury does not necessarily need to be erected for worker use to fall under the statute's purview.

Labor LawStatutory InterpretationConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyAlteration WorkScaffolding LawNew YorkWork Area ProtectionContractor LiabilityWorker Protection
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 1987

Claim of Maloney v. Metal

Claimant was injured in an accident on the employer's private roadway while leaving work. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a prior decision, finding that the accident, involving the claimant’s vehicle going onto a soft shoulder on employer property, was a special hazard and occurred in the course of employment. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s determination, holding that the accident on the employer’s sole route of ingress/egress was a risk of employment. The court also agreed that the soft shoulder was a special hazard, and affirmed that contributory negligence does not affect coverage.

Workers' CompensationAccident during departureEmployer premisesPrivate roadwaySpecial hazardSoft shoulderCourse of employmentRisk of employmentContributory negligenceAffirmance
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1983

Claim of Trubish v. New York Institute of Technology

The claimant, an assistant foreman, was injured after tripping while leaving a union meeting held on the employer's premises after his shift. The employer's insurance carrier contested benefits, arguing the accident wasn't work-related. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the referee's finding of an accident in the course of employment, citing the right to safe ingress/egress and a reasonable time to leave the premises. The court rejected the broad principle that union meetings are always work-related or mutually beneficial. However, it concluded the injury occurred within a reasonable time of leaving the premises after work duties, as the employer permitted the meeting. Therefore, the decision affirming benefits was upheld.

Workers' CompensationUnion MeetingCourse of EmploymentInjury on PremisesIngress and EgressReasonable TimeEmployer PermissionWork-Related AccidentCollective BargainingAppellate Decision
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arabian v. Benenson

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 1, 2000, which had granted summary judgment to the defendants in a personal injury action and dismissed the complaint. The appellate court reversed this order, denied the defendants' motion, and reinstated the plaintiffs' complaint. The court found that the trial court erred because the defendants, as owners of the Roosevelt Field Shopping Mall, had a nondelegable duty to provide a reasonably safe premises, including safe means of ingress and egress. Consequently, the defendants were vicariously liable for any negligence on the part of their hired workers who allegedly created a hazardous condition in a mall walkway. Therefore, the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNondelegable DutyVicarious LiabilityHazardous ConditionMall WalkwayReinstated ComplaintNassau County Supreme Court
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 23 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