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

Stein v. Beaver Concrete Breaking Co.

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. ADJ9942537
Regular
Dec 09, 2018

ANGELO RIOS vs. RUSHER AIR CONDITIONING, INSURANCE CO OF THE WEST SAN DIEGO

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

Matter of Shyti v. ABM

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

Claim of Jones v. Chevrolet-Tonawanda Division, GMC

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2001

A.I. Transport v. New York State Insurance Fund

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1981

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Newman

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

Mutual Aid Assn. of the Paid Fire Dept. of the City of Yonkers, N.Y., Inc. v. City of Yonkers

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
Case No. ADJ855806 (VNO 0433480) ADJ1859136 (VNO 0436396)
Regular
Aug 19, 2010

JOHN BATTISTA vs. GROUND BREAKING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SABLE INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation

This case concerns a dispute over reimbursement between the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) and State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). CIGA seeks reimbursement for over $52,000 paid on behalf of Sable Insurance Company, which is in liquidation. SCIF argues the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) improperly awarded reimbursement without ruling on SCIF's evidentiary objections, its request for cross-examination, or its arbitration claim. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the ALJ's decision lacked sufficient explanation and analysis of SCIF's contentions. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings and a properly reasoned decision addressing all issues.

CIGASCIFSable Insurance Companyliquidationreimbursementapportionmenttemporary disabilitymedical treatmentexpensesarbitration
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castro v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant suffered compensable right knee injuries in 1992 and 1994, leading to a stipulated 22.5% schedule loss of use award in 2001, after which the cases were closed. Upon reopening in 2005, liability shifted from the employer's workers' compensation carrier to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. Following a recurrence of injuries in October 2005, the Fund sought a credit for the prior schedule loss of use award paid by the carrier, which was initially denied but later granted by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Claimant appealed this decision, arguing that the Fund should not receive credit for awards commencing more than two years prior to the transfer of liability, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1) and prior case law. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, explaining that the Fund assumes the carrier's rights and responsibilities, including any existing credits, and distinguished the cited precedent based on a lack of injury reclassification in the current case.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSchedule Loss of Use AwardSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCredit Against AwardsLiability TransferRecurrence of InjuryAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionStipulationCase Reopening
References
5
Case No. ADJ8949252
Regular
Feb 14, 2018

SERGIO CERON (Deceased), GINA PIELLUSCH (Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem), SABRINA CERON PIELLUSCH, CLAUDIA CERON, DAVID CERON, ROXANNA CURTIS, vs. HAMBURG, KARIC, EDWARD & MARTIN; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the finding that the deceased paralegal's death was not industrially caused. The Board affirmed the judge's conclusion that the decedent was not performing a service for his employer or acting within the course of employment at the time of death. The applicant failed to prove the personal comfort exception applied, as the decedent was not paid for his lunch break. Deference was given to the judge's credibility assessment of a key witness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurydeathgoing and coming rulepersonal comfort exceptioncourse of employmentlabor codecompensable injuryhourly paywitness credibility
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 983 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