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 Smith v. LSI Lighting Services

A machine operator, referred to as claimant, sustained a head injury and became totally disabled after falling from a platform at work. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for benefits, accepting the employer's defense that the injury resulted solely from intoxication. Evidence included a 0.218% blood alcohol content and medical records indicating alcohol abuse. The Board concluded that claimant's fall was due to intoxication, thereby overcoming the statutory presumption that the injury was not solely due to intoxication. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the finding that intoxication was the sole cause of the claimant's injury.

Workers' Compensation AppealIntoxication DefenseBlood Alcohol ContentStatutory Presumption RebuttalSole Cause of InjuryAppellate Review StandardSubstantial EvidenceMedical Records EvidenceAlcoholism DiagnosisWorkplace Fall
References
7
Case No. CV-23-2141
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jorge Ferra

Claimant Jorge Ferra, a sound engineer, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling for his employer. A toxicology screening showed he was legally intoxicated. The employer and carrier argued that intoxication was the sole cause, making the claim non-compensable under Workers' Compensation Law § 10 (1). The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ's decision, finding that the carrier failed to prove intoxication was the *sole* cause, as a third vehicle striking claimant's car also contributed to the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that driving while intoxicated does not inherently constitute a deviation from employment, and the employer bears a heavy burden to overcome the statutory presumption that injuries were not *solely* due to intoxication.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefenseMotor Vehicle AccidentSole Cause of InjuryDeviation from EmploymentCompensabilityBlood Alcohol ContentAppellate ReviewStatutory PresumptionEmployer Liability
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romano v. Stanley

Marie Romano sued Harold Stanley's estate and three establishments (Jack’s Oyster House, Martel’s of Broadway, and Dee Dee’s Tavern) under the Dram Shop Act after being injured in an automobile accident caused by Nancy Stanley, who was allegedly intoxicated. Jack’s Oyster House and Martel’s of Broadway moved for summary judgment, arguing Stanley was not "visibly intoxicated" when served alcohol on their premises. Plaintiff submitted an expert’s affidavit based on Stanley’s high blood and urine alcohol levels, asserting she must have been visibly intoxicated at the time. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an expert's affidavit relying solely on blood alcohol content to infer visible intoxication, without a stated scientific basis or personal professional experience in judging live intoxication manifestations, is speculative and conclusory and lacks sufficient probative force to defeat summary judgment.

Dram Shop ActVisible IntoxicationBlood Alcohol ContentExpert TestimonySummary JudgmentForensic PathologistCircumstantial EvidenceAlcoholic Beverage Control LawSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Villapol v. American Landmark Management

Claimant, an elevator operator, sustained serious injuries after falling into an empty elevator shaft due to a defective elevator parking device, despite being severely intoxicated. The Workers' Compensation Board granted benefits, finding the injury was not solely caused by intoxication but partly by the defective device. The employer appealed, arguing intoxication was the sole cause. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the statutory presumption against intoxication as the sole cause and ample evidence of the defective elevator as a contributing factor. The court also found harmless error in denying claimant's testimony and no abuse of discretion in denying full Board review.

Elevator AccidentIntoxication DefenseDefective EquipmentStatutory PresumptionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCausationHarmless ErrorFull Board Review Denial
References
6
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01847 [236 AD3d 1267]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Matter of Ferra v. Paramount Global

Claimant Jorge Ferra, a sound engineer, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling for his employer. After an initial 'bumper to bumper' incident, he pulled over to the shoulder, and his vehicle was subsequently struck from behind by a third vehicle, causing serious injuries. A toxicology screening revealed a blood alcohol level of .18. The employer and carrier argued that intoxication was either the sole cause of the accident or constituted a significant deviation from employment, thus precluding compensability. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and that intoxication was not the sole cause of the injury. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, reiterating that the carrier bears a 'heavy burden' to prove intoxication was the *sole* cause of the injury, and that intoxicated driving itself does not, per se, constitute a deviation from employment that negates workers' compensation coverage.

Intoxication DefenseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMotor Vehicle AccidentCourse of EmploymentSole Cause DoctrineDeviation from EmploymentCausally Related InjuryBlood Alcohol ContentAppellate ReviewThird Department Precedent
References
19
Case No. ADJ10450656
Regular
Sep 27, 2017

ALEX RONALD PADILLA vs. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant's injury was not barred by the defense of intoxication. While drug tests showed the applicant tested positive for controlled substances, there was insufficient medical or expert evidence to prove intoxication or impairment at the time of the injury. The WCJ's credibility determinations, particularly regarding the applicant's testimony about his intoxication level and the employer's failure to present conclusive evidence, were given great weight.

ADJ10450656Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ credibility determinationintoxication defenseaffirmative defenseburden of proofcontrolled substancesdrug screen reportssurveillance film
References
2
Case No. ADJ10950502
Regular
Mar 10, 2020

ROBERT HANSEN (Deceased), DIANA HANSEN, MAYA HANSEN, CALLIE HANSEN, ROBERT GENE REINHARDT, Guardian Ad Litem For MATTHEW HANSEN and TAYLOR HANSEN vs. FREIGHT HANDLERS, LLC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the deceased sustained a compensable industrial injury causing death. The Board agreed with the WCJ that the defendant failed to prove the decedent's intoxication proximately caused the injury, despite acknowledging the decedent was intoxicated. Furthermore, the Board found substantial evidence supported the WCJ's conclusion that the death was not a suicide and that the decedent remained within the course of employment under the commercial traveler rule, even with his intoxication and the employer's zero-tolerance policy.

Compensable Industrial InjurySuicide DefenseIntoxication DefenseCourse of EmploymentCommercial Traveler RuleProximate CauseBurden of ProofSubstantial Evidence RuleCredibility DeterminationsZero Tolerance Policy
References
11
Case No. ADJ1805486 (GOL 0100327)
Regular
Apr 30, 2010

SUZANNE SINGER vs. DISNEYLAND, DISNEY WORLD WIDE SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves an employee, Suzanne Singer, injured in a car accident after attending an employer-sponsored service award dinner. The employer, Disneyland, argued the injury was non-industrial due to a major deviation from a special mission exception to the going and coming rule and intoxication. While the Appeals Board agreed the injury occurred after a substantial deviation from the special mission, they noted the employer failed to prove intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident and might be estopped from raising that defense. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the finding of no industrial injury but deleted the intoxication finding.

Special mission exceptionGoing and coming ruleDeviationIntoxication defenseEstoppelCredibility determinationCourse of employmentArising out of employmentCumulative trauma injuryService award dinner
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Commissioner of Taxation & Finance v. Victory Memorial Hospital

Decedent, a hospital porter, residing on the hospital premises, was off duty and intoxicated when he returned to the hospital at 3 a.m. On the premises, he fell down a stairway, fracturing his skull. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found the incident occurred in the regular course of employment. However, the court found no substantial evidence to support this, determining that decedent was off duty and his accident was solely due to intoxication. The presumption under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 21, subd. 4, which states an industrial accident is not solely due to intoxication, was deemed inapplicable as the employee was not 'on duty.' Consequently, the court reversed the award and dismissed the claim.

IntoxicationOff-duty injuryCourse of employmentPresumption of causeAlcoholismHospital workerPremises liabilityWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewClaim dismissal
References
0
Case No. CV-23-0458
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Jose Lujan-Espinzo

Claimant Jose Lujan-Espinzo fell from a ladder while intoxicated, sustaining serious injuries. The employer, Electrical Illuminations by Arnold Inc., and its carrier argued the accident was solely caused by intoxication, seeking to disallow the claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 10 (1). The Workers' Compensation Board modified a WCLJ decision, finding that other factors contributed to the fall and that intoxication was not the sole cause. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the carrier failed to rebut the presumption of compensability, citing other potential contributing factors such as working alone or misjudgment of footing.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefenseLadder AccidentSole Cause of InjuryPresumption of CompensabilityAppellate ReviewWitness CredibilityContributory NegligenceOccupational SafetyAlcohol Impairment
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 98 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