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. 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

Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority

The petitioner, a 15-year employee of the New York City Transit Authority named Johnson, was demoted from structure supervisor and foreman to structure maintainer after a disciplinary hearing. This demotion followed a blood alcohol test, which showed .7 milligrams of alcohol per cubic centimeter in his blood, taken after he was involved as a passenger in a minor traffic accident. The Transit Authority's determination was based on an internal, uncodified policy stating that a .5 blood alcohol reading automatically proved intoxication, despite no evidence of Johnson's actual intoxication or poor performance. Johnson testified the alcohol was from prescription cough medicine and two scotches consumed over 21 hours prior. The court, reviewing the determination under CPLR article 78, annulled the demotion, ruling that the finding of unfitness was not supported by substantial evidence, especially considering New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195 (2)(b) deems a .7 reading prima facie evidence of *not* being intoxicated. The court ordered Johnson restored to his supervisory position with full back pay.

Disciplinary ActionDemotionBlood Alcohol TestUnfitness for DutyCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewIntoxication PolicyBack PayJudicial AnnulmentPrescription Medication
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fafinski v. Reliance Insurance

In a jury trial, a plaintiff sued an insurance company for disclaiming no-fault coverage, asserting the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the automobile accident. The trial court excluded evidence of a non-consensual blood-alcohol test, which showed plaintiff was intoxicated, based on lack of consent and non-compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194. The defendant insurance company appealed. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that blood-alcohol test results, if properly founded, are admissible in civil cases to prove intoxication for no-fault policy exclusions, regardless of express consent or compliance with criminal procedural requirements. The case was remanded for a new trial.

IntoxicationNo-fault coverageBlood-alcohol test admissibilityPolicy exclusionAutomobile accidentCivil evidenceVehicle and Traffic LawInsurance LawConsent requirementsHospital records
References
15
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Milland

This child protective proceeding addresses the neglect of an infant named Natasha, born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (F.A.S.). The case examines whether a mother's prenatal alcohol consumption and a father's isolated alcohol misuse constitute neglect. Dr. Steven Kandall testified about Natasha's severe medical and developmental issues caused by F.A.S., emphasizing her need for intense supervision. The court found that the mother's admitted alcohol use during pregnancy, her inability to stop drinking despite warnings, and her child's condition provided a basis for a finding of neglect. The father's two documented instances of intoxication and impaired judgment at the hospital also established a prima facie case of neglect. Ultimately, the court concluded that under the care of either parent, the child with her special needs would be in imminent danger of harm, thus finding both parents guilty of neglect.

Child Protective ProceedingNeglectFetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS)Parental Alcohol MisusePrenatal ConductImminent Danger of ImpairmentSpecial Needs ChildFamily Court ActSufficiency of EvidenceLoss of Self-Control
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1997

Claim of Dawson v. S.P.F. Carting Co.

A sanitation truck driver, the claimant, sustained a back injury in a motor vehicle accident during work. A breathalyzer test after the accident revealed a high blood alcohol content, leading to a felony conviction for driving under the influence. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied his claim for benefits, determining that his intoxication was the sole cause of the accident, thereby rebutting the statutory presumption against sole intoxication as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (4). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that intoxication was the exclusive cause of the claimant’s injuries, precluding the receipt of workers’ compensation benefits.

Motor Vehicle AccidentIntoxicationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSole CauseStatutory PresumptionSubstantial EvidenceFelony ConvictionBlood Alcohol ContentBack InjuryDriving Under Influence
References
2
Case No. CV-24-0636
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Felipe Zamora Ramales

Claimant Felipe Zamora Ramales, a pizzeria kitchen assistant, suffered severe burns after a fall down basement stairs while carrying a large pot of hot tomato sauce. Emergency notes indicated a high blood alcohol content, leading the employer and carrier to argue his injuries were solely due to intoxication and thus not compensable. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, establishing the claim and finding that intoxication was not the sole cause, invoking the presumption of compensability under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (4). The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that the carrier failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required to rebut the presumption. The court reasoned that navigating a heavy pot down stairs was a contributory factor in the accident, preventing intoxication from being the exclusive cause.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefensePresumption of CompensabilityWorkplace AccidentBurn InjuryBlood Alcohol ContentSole CauseContributory FactorAppellate ReviewCredibility Assessment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Milz v. J & R Amusement Corp.

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on May 20, 1981. The central issue is whether the appellants successfully overcame the statutory presumption (Workers’ Compensation Law, § 21, subd 4) that the injured employee’s death did not result solely from intoxication while on duty. The Board, relying on an autopsy report and Trooper O’Brien's testimony, found that the carrier failed to overcome this presumption, concluding that other factors contributed significantly to the employee's demise. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the strong statutory presumption is rebutted only when evidence unequivocally shows intoxication as the sole cause, a heavy burden for the appellants. Despite a high alcohol concentration in the decedent's body, the court noted contributing factors like the decedent working all day, consuming only four drinks, acting normally before driving, and the accident occurring on a dark, curving road. Thus, the employer and carrier failed to establish intoxication as the exclusive cause of death.

Intoxication defenseWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory presumptionBurden of proofDeath benefits claimAppellate reviewAccident causationSole causeEvidence insufficiency
References
3
Case No. SBR 0335761
Regular
Feb 01, 2008

JAGDEV PANDHER vs. ROSS DISTRIBUTION, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in three sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's hand injury was compensable. The Board found the employer failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that alcohol intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury. Crucially, the available blood test results were inconclusive and explicitly stated they might not be accurate, and no witnesses observed the applicant exhibiting signs of intoxication at the time of the incident.

PandherRoss DistributionSedgwick Claims Management Servicesintoxication defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(4)proximate causepreponderance of the evidenceETOH mg/dLchain of custodyblood sample
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 203 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