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. ADJ6754663
Regular
Jun 21, 2010

RUBEN CASTILLO vs. J. JOHNSON & COMPANY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured within six months of employment, raising a claim for psychiatric injury. Labor Code Section 3208.3(d) generally bars such claims unless the injury results from a "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition. The Appeals Board, in a majority decision, found the applicant's injury from a backhoe bucket was not extraordinary, thus reversing the WCJ's finding and barring the psychiatric claim. A dissenting opinion argued that being struck by a backhoe bucket is not a regular or routine incident and should qualify as a sudden and extraordinary event.

Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurysix-month employment rulereconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJReport and Recommendationbackhoe bucketworkplace violence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Odierno v. Regan

Petitioner, a maintenance worker, sought accidental disability retirement benefits for a back injury sustained while installing an air conditioner. His application was denied on the grounds that the injury did not constitute an "accident" under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as it occurred during routine duties. The CPLR article 78 proceeding was initiated to challenge this determination. The court confirmed the respondent's decision, noting a discrepancy between the petitioner's written account and oral testimony regarding the incident. The court found that the injury arose from regular duties and thus was not an unexpected "accident" within the meaning of the statute, dismissing the petition.

Accidental disability retirementCPLR article 78Maintenance workerBack injuryOrdinary course of dutiesUnexpected eventSubstantial evidenceCredibility disputeHearsay evidenceWorkers' compensation report
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Williams v. Edgewater Savings & Loan Ass'n

The claimant, a porter and janitor, regularly worked at two employer branch offices in Staten Island. On October 3, 1956, after finishing work at one office, he was traveling in his personal car to his home for lunch before returning to the main office, a daily routine. During this trip, his car got a flat tire, and he was injured while attempting repairs. The Workmen’s Compensation Board disallowed his claim, finding he was not an outside worker and was on a personal mission during his lunch break. The appellate court affirmed the board's decision, ruling there was substantial evidence that the accident occurred while the claimant was on personal business.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentLunch Break AccidentPersonal MissionFixed Place of EmploymentTravel between officesAutomobile AccidentFlat TireInjury ClaimBoard Decision Affirmed
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rumsey v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Plaintiffs, employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services and military reservists, challenged Departmental Directive # 2212, which allowed the rescheduling of their regular days off to coincide with military drills. They claimed this violated their rights under federal and state military laws and the Equal Protection Clause, arguing it discriminated against them by not requiring similar rescheduling for other types of leave. The defendants asserted the directive was necessary to address staffing shortages and prevent abuse of military leave, noting that pass days were routinely rescheduled for various other reasons. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the directive did not constitute discrimination, as it did not require 'special accommodations' for reservists beyond what was afforded to other employees, consistent with the precedent set in Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.

Military LeaveEmployment RightsWork ScheduleDiscrimination ClaimSummary Judgment MotionCollective BargainingSeniority RightsDepartmental DirectiveFederal LawState Law
References
10
Case No. No. 95
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

The Matter of John Borelli v. City of Yonkers

This case addresses a dispute between the City of Yonkers and 39 of its permanently disabled, retired firefighters regarding the calculation of their General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) supplement. The core issue is whether certain compensation, specifically holiday pay, check-in pay, and night differential, constitutes “regular salary or wages” for the purpose of this supplement. The Court concluded that “regular salary or wages” includes monetary compensation to which current firefighters are contractually entitled based on the performance of their regular job duties, thus requiring the inclusion of holiday pay and check-in pay. However, it excludes monetary compensation based on the performance of additional responsibilities beyond their regular job duties, and therefore, night differential should not be included. The lower court's decision was modified to reflect this interpretation.

General Municipal Law 207-aDisabled Firefighters' BenefitsRegular Salary CalculationCollective Bargaining Agreement InterpretationHoliday Pay EntitlementCheck-in Pay DisputesNight Differential ExclusionMunicipal Financial BurdenStatutory Remedial PurposePublic Sector Employment
References
22
Case No. ADJ6884562
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

ERIC KRUSE vs. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns whether a 15% reduction in permanent disability indemnity applies when an employer offers an injured employee regular work after their condition is permanent and stationary. The applicant, a parking enforcement officer, sustained a neck and elbow injury and was temporarily disabled before returning to his regular job. The employer offered regular work after the applicant's condition became permanent and stationary, but the applicant had already returned to his normal duties. The majority found that since there was no indication of permanent disability prior to the employer's offer, all permanent indemnity was payable after the offer, entitling the employer to the reduction. However, a dissenting commissioner argued that the offer lacked practical meaning as the applicant had already returned to work and that no weekly payments remained after the offer to be reduced.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEric KruseCity of San Rafaelparking enforcement officerindustrial injuryneck injuryright elbow injurytemporary total disabilitypermanent and stationaryoffer of regular work
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2005

Kirk v. Outokumpu American Brass, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Hohl Industrial Services, Inc., sustained injuries in July 1999 after falling from a ladder at a facility owned by the defendant. The plaintiff initiated legal action, asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Defendant sought and was granted summary judgment by the Supreme Court, which concluded that the plaintiff's work was routine maintenance, not a repair, and thus not covered under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the work performed during a routine "shut down" period for replacing worn parts qualified as routine maintenance, not a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), and consequently, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was also dismissed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentRoutine MaintenanceLadder FallWorkplace InjuryStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewConstruction WorkThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Detraglia v. Blue Circle Cement Co.

Plaintiff, injured by a falling chain during routine maintenance at defendant's kiln, sought damages under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendant's cross-motion, dismissing claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) on the grounds that the work constituted routine maintenance, not construction. However, the court found factual issues precluding summary judgment on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed this decision, agreeing that the plaintiff's activity was routine maintenance, thus not within the purview of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), and that issues of fact remained for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.

routine maintenanceLabor Lawsummary judgmentfalling objectindustrial accidentstatutory interpretationconstruction workpremises liabilityappellate reviewpersonal injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. City of New York

Plaintiff, an employee of Millar Elevator Industries, Inc., was injured during routine elevator maintenance at Harlem Hospital, owned by the City of New York and New York Health & Hospitals Corporation. Plaintiff sued the City alleging violations of New York Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6) and common-law negligence. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing the work was routine maintenance, not a repair or construction activity covered by the Labor Law statutes. The court agreed with the City, finding the Labor Law sections inapplicable to routine maintenance and that common-law negligence was not established due to a lack of notice and supervisory control by the defendants. Consequently, the City's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Millar's third-party complaint for indemnification and contribution was also dismissed.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceRoutine maintenanceElevator accidentWorkplace injuryThird-party complaintIndemnificationContribution
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. Continental Casualty Co.

Peterson sued Continental Casualty Company (CNA) seeking short- and long-term disability benefits under ERISA. CNA denied the claims, arguing Peterson was not disabled from a modified, sedentary desk job CBS assigned him after his injury. Peterson cross-moved for summary judgment and sought to add CBS as a defendant for failing to provide plan documents. The court denied both summary judgment motions, finding CNA's interpretation of Peterson's 'regular occupation' as the temporary desk job to be arbitrary and capricious. The court remanded both disability claims to the Claim Administrator to re-evaluate based on Peterson's actual regular occupation prior to his injury, noting that an 'accommodation' job is not the 'regular occupation'. Peterson's request to amend the complaint to add CBS was also denied due to lack of demonstrated prejudice and insufficient grounds for ERISA sanctions.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary Judgment MotionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewClaim Administrator DiscretionRegular Occupation DefinitionTotal Disability DefinitionCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSpinal Cord Compression
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 382 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