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
May 30, 2000

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Stuart Stein appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to Beaver Concrete Breaking Co., Inc., dismissing his personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing that a person can have both a general and special employer for Workers' Compensation Law purposes. Since Stein received workers' compensation benefits from his special employer, JAB Construction, Inc., and Beaver was determined to be his general employer, Beaver was shielded from the lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, and 29 [6].

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTort LawNew York Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Appellant Lewis Eugene Ward, an hourly-paid employee of Mid-South Home Service, sustained a knee injury while playing basketball at a customer's home during a work break. The injury occurred when the work crew was waiting for more concrete. The employer did not sponsor the recreational activity, and it was not customary or required as part of the employment. The trial judge ruled that the injury did not arise out of employment, a decision which the Supreme Court affirmed. The Court held that purely personal recreational activities, even if occurring during a paid break on a job site, do not fall within the scope of worker's compensation unless there is clear employer sponsorship, custom, or direct benefit to the employer.

Worker's CompensationScope of EmploymentRecreational ActivityInjury during BreakArising out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentPersonal ActivityEmployer SponsorshipBasketball InjuryConstruction Worker
References
5
Case No. ADJ9942537
Regular
Dec 09, 2018

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained during his unpaid lunch break. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the prior decision that denied the claim. The Board found that the applicant's injury did not fall under the "going and coming" rule due to evidence that he was performing work-related tasks during his break, including taking work calls and researching for a bid. Furthermore, the Board determined the injury likely occurred after the unpaid lunch period concluded, extending into a paid break.

Going and coming ruledual purpose exceptioncourse of employmentscope of employmentAOE/COEpersonal comfort doctrinepaid breaksunpaid lunch breakassaultthird-party assault
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01467
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2021

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Prena Shyti, an office cleaning person, sustained injuries after slipping on a sidewalk across the street from her workplace during a paid 15-minute break. She was on her way to a pizza parlor after smoking a cigarette, which she was instructed to do off-premises. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed her claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board ultimately reversed, finding the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, applying the 'coffee break rule,' which holds that accidents during short breaks, even off-premises, can be compensable if the activity is reasonable and sufficiently work-related.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out Of EmploymentCoffee Break RuleOff-Premises InjuryPaid BreakEmployee ConductAppellate DivisionThird Department
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves appeals from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a self-insured employer’s entitlement to credit for holiday wages paid to disabled employees. Claimants Hanks and Jones were injured during employment, resulting in lost time, including holidays. The employer paid them compensation for lost time but also provided full wages for holidays as per collective bargaining agreements, subsequently seeking reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4)(a). The Board denied these reimbursement requests, stating that holiday pay was a contractual right and not intended to be in lieu of compensation. The appellate court reversed the Board’s decisions, ruling that denying reimbursement would lead to claimants receiving both full wages and compensation for the holidays, creating an imbalance. Therefore, the employer is entitled to reimbursement, and the matters are remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' CompensationHoliday PayReimbursementCollective Bargaining AgreementDisabled EmployeesLost WagesSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ReversalStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. 03-18-00445-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2018

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case is an interlocutory appeal challenging the City of Austin’s paid-sick-leave ordinance. The Texas Association of Business and other private parties, along with the State of Texas as intervenor, sued the City of Austin, asserting the ordinance is unconstitutional and preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act. The district court denied both the application for a temporary injunction and the City’s jurisdictional challenges. The appellate court reversed, holding that the district court had jurisdiction over the claims and that the City’s paid-sick-leave ordinance violates the Texas Constitution because it is preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act. The case was remanded for the issuance of the requested temporary injunction and further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Texas lawAustin ordinancepaid sick leavepreemptionTexas Minimum Wage Actconstitutional lawinterlocutory appealgovernmental immunityripenessstanding
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2001

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied a liability insurer’s application to stay an arbitration initiated by a workers’ compensation insurer. The workers’ compensation insurer sought to recover benefits paid to a bus passenger injured in an accident, where the bus was insured by the liability insurer. The court interpreted Insurance Law § 5105 (a) to allow a workers’ compensation provider, paying benefits in lieu of first party benefits, to recover amounts paid from the insurer of a liable party, even if one of the vehicles involved is a bus. It was determined that an exception for losses arising from the use of a motor vehicle (Insurance Law § 5103 [a] [1]) did not apply, as the respondent was a workers’ compensation insurer and not an automobile insurer. Consequently, the arbitration was allowed to proceed, and the petition to stay it was dismissed and unanimously affirmed.

Arbitration DisputeInsurance Law InterpretationNo-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation SubrogationBus AccidentLiability CoverageStatutory ConstructionAppellate ReviewInsurer Recovery
References
4
Case No. 2015-06-0419
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2016

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Derrick L. McDade, Sr. filed an Expedited Hearing Request for medical and temporary partial disability benefits after being struck by a vehicle on June 4, 2015, while on a paid break from his job at Labor Ready. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Chattanooga, presided over by Judge Thomas Wyatt, reviewed the case based on file documents. Despite the employer's contention that Dr. Nevels deemed the injury non-compensable, the court interpreted Dr. Nevels' comment as related to the injury occurring during a break, which Tennessee law considers compensable. The Court found Mr. McDade likely to prevail, granting him medical benefits and temporary partial disability benefits of $128.70 per week from July 20, 2015, until his return to work or maximum medical improvement.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Partial DisabilityAutomobile AccidentWorkplace InjuryPaid BreakScope of EmploymentCausationMedical OpinionLegal Precedent
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1981

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Plaintiff insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, mistakenly paid $9,805.66 to defendant Ruth Newman, intended for an aggregate trust fund related to her deceased husband's workers' compensation benefits. After forwarding the correct payment to the fund, Liberty Mutual sought restitution from Newman, who refused. The Workers' Compensation Board declined to intervene, stating no recourse existed under the Workers' Compensation Law for the error. Special Term initially granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual. On appeal, the judgment was modified, with the Appellate Division agreeing it was a mistake of fact, not an overpayment of benefits, thus affirming the denial of Newman's summary judgment motion. However, the case was remitted to Special Term for a hearing to determine if ordering full restitution would cause a detrimental change in Newman's position regarding her benefits, and clarified that interest and costs should not be awarded against her.

restitutionmistake of factworkers' compensationsummary judgmentunjust enrichmentdetrimental relianceequityinsurance carrieraggregate trust fundappellate review
References
19
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06178
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2021

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The plaintiff, a union representing firefighters in Yonkers, initiated an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Yonkers and other entities regarding the construction of a new firehouse for the Ridge Hill development. The plaintiff contended that the City defendants were in violation of SEQRA and other legal duties for failing to construct the firehouse. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, interpreting the SEQRA documents as mandating the firehouse. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Division found that the SEQRA documents and City Council resolutions did not unambiguously require the construction of a new firehouse, but rather specified other mitigation measures. The court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for the entry of a judgment declaring in favor of the defendants.

State Environmental Quality Review ActSEQRADeclaratory Judgment ActionInjunctive ReliefMunicipal LawLand Use DevelopmentZoning BoardFire Protection ServicesMixed-Use DevelopmentAppellate Procedure
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,596 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