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. ADJ10864843
Regular
Nov 15, 2018

YOLANDA PLASCENCIA vs. HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA, SOMPO AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who sustained injuries after falling into a pothole on her employer's premises during a break. The applicant was in the process of switching vehicles with her daughter when the incident occurred. The defendant argued the injury was not AOE/COE, as the personal vehicle exchange served no employer benefit and the personal comfort doctrine did not apply. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the injury compensable under the personal comfort doctrine. The Board reasoned that it's reasonably contemplated for employees to access the employer's parking lot during breaks, and moving a personal car is a personal convenience incidental to employment.

AOE/COEPersonal Comfort DoctrineIndustrial InjuryCourse of EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJEmployer's PremisesPaid Break
References
2
Case No. ADJ8550333
Regular
May 15, 2015

STEPHEN MARTIN BLOXHAM vs. LITHIA FORD MAZDA SUZUKI, HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that a car salesman's injuries from a car accident while purchasing cigarettes on a paid, employer-authorized break arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. This falls under the personal comfort doctrine, an exception to the going and coming rule, and the employer's encouragement of "prospecting" at the store further supported coverage. The Board rejected the defendant's argument that smoking's health detriments should disqualify it from the personal comfort doctrine.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactOrderOpinion on DecisionAOE/COEgoing and coming rulepersonal comfort doctrinepaid breakemployer's permissionprospecting
References
1
Case No. ADJ15229971
Regular
Mar 17, 2023

GRANT ELLISON vs. CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration of an award to an employee injured by a COVID-19 vaccine. The Board found the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, citing the "dual purpose" rule where the employer strongly encouraged vaccination to reduce employee absences. The Board also applied the "personal convenience" doctrine, stating acts for comfort and convenience while at work are incidental to employment. Therefore, the employee's vaccine injury was deemed work-related, and the employer is liable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGrant EllisonCity of San BuenaventuraAthens AdministratorsCOVID-19 vaccinationarising out of employmentcourse of employmentdual purpose rulepersonal convenience doctrinework-related injury
References
0
Case No. LBO 0383984
Regular
Dec 27, 2007

PATRICK ESPOSITO vs. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that Patrick Esposito's injury sustained while falling from a hotel balcony to smoke was compensable. The Board adopted the reasoning that the act of smoking fell under the "personal comfort and convenience" and "commercial traveler" doctrines, making it incidental to his employment as a flight attendant on layover. The Court found that the employee's poor decisions after being locked out did not negate the compensability of the injury.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPATRICK ESPOSITONORTHWEST AIRLINESLIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCEORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONworkers' compensation administrative law judgepersonal comfort and convenience doctrinecommercial traveler ruleon callper diem
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2012

Ali v. State

The claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims that dismissed their claim for personal injuries. The incident occurred on February 24, 2009, at the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board office when a security guard, reacting to news of his grandmother's death, punched a wooden bench causing it to fall on the claimant. The claimant subsequently filed a personal injury claim against the State of New York. The Court of Claims granted the defendant's application to dismiss the claim, determining that the security guard was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to his employment, and his conduct was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, thus precluding vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentForeseeabilityEmployee MisconductClaim DismissalCourt of Claims DecisionAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1999

Giordano v. Toys R Us, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury complaint. The plaintiff's case relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. However, the appellate court found that the "exclusive control" element of the doctrine was not satisfied. Evidence suggested that the plaintiff or co-workers could have disturbed the wooden board that fell and caused the injury. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants.

Personal InjuryRes Ipsa LoquiturNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive ControlPremises LiabilityStockroom SafetyFalling DebrisCausation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2002

D'Amato v. Access Manufacturing, Inc.

The plaintiff, a welder's assistant, sustained personal injuries when his hand was caught in a metal grinding machine at the defendant's Queens manufacturing facility. The plaintiff sued the defendant, a corporation that manufactured metal doors and handrailings. The Supreme Court, Queens County, entered judgment for the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in precluding a special employment defense under the Workers' Compensation Law, based on the doctrine of law of the case. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the law of the case doctrine was misapplied as the special employment issue had not been previously litigated. A new trial was granted on the issue of liability only, while the jury's findings as to damages were affirmed. The court also noted errors in permitting speculative expert testimony and limiting the defendant's ability to refresh the plaintiff's recollection.

Personal InjurySpecial EmploymentLaw of the CaseAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulingsLiabilityDamagesNew TrialJury VerdictCorporate Entity
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00653 [179 AD3d 1412]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of James v. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc.

Claimant Christina James sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a work-related ankle injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established an employer-employee relationship and awarded benefits. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc. appealed this decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for review was denied due to incompleteness; specifically, referring to attached pages for the "Basis for Appeal" instead of providing the information directly on the form RB-89. Home Comfort then appealed the Board's denial to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board acted within its discretion by refusing to consider an application that did not fully comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1).

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewIncomplete ApplicationForm RB-89Administrative ReviewDiscretionary AuthorityProcedural ComplianceThird DepartmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipJurisdictional Defect
References
8
Case No. ADJ6671912
Regular
Nov 20, 2013

HONG GUANG ZHU, Deceased HE RUI YUN, Spouse vs. TRI VILLAGE CHINESE RESTAURANT, FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior finding that the decedent chef's death arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The decedent was shot and killed while resting in his car during a split shift, a common and permitted practice. The Board found this constituted a neutral risk, as no personal motive for the murder was identified, thus satisfying the "personal comfort doctrine." Therefore, the death was deemed compensable as it was linked to his employment by time, place, and circumstance.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS OF FACTCOURSE OF EMPLOYMENTARISING OUT OF EMPLOYMENTCHEFSPLIT SHIFTPERSONAL COMFORT DOCTRINENEUTRAL RISKUNKNOWN MOTIVE
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,382 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