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
Aug 08, 1986

Cea v. Combined Life Insurance

The employer and its carrier appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found the claimant's disabling back condition to be a compensable occupational disease, not apportionable with a preexisting condition. The claimant, a life insurance salesman, alleged that excessive driving in his job aggravated a prior back condition, leading to permanent disability. While he had undergone surgery for a nonmalignant bone tumor in 1970 and received a veteran's disability pension, the Board found his condition was not disabling prior to his employment as a salesman. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant's employment activities acted on the preexisting condition to cause a disability that did not previously exist, and therefore, apportionment was not required.

Occupational DiseaseApportionmentPreexisting ConditionBack InjuryLife Insurance SalesmanExcessive DrivingAggravation of InjuryWorkers' CompensationDisabilityCausal Relationship
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liebowitz v. Primatex Fabrics Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that rejected a claim for death benefits. The claimant's decedent, a salesman, died from a myocardial infarction, and his widow alleged that unusually heavy work activities prior to his death caused the fatal attack. The Board, after reviewing evidence, found no causal relationship between the work and the death. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that it was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsMyocardial InfarctionCausal RelationshipWork-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceMedical EvidenceAffirmation
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wortman v. State Tax Commission

The petitioner, a salesman for Madison Sportswear and Wardrobe Makers, was assessed unincorporated business taxes for the years 1971-1974 by the State Tax Commission. He worked on a straight commission, maintained a home office, and received no employee benefits. Despite some evidence suggesting an employer-employee relationship, the Commission determined his activities constituted an unincorporated business, making his earnings subject to the tax. The court, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, confirmed the Commission's determination, dismissing the petition.

Unincorporated Business TaxSalesmanCommission-basedEmployer-Employee RelationshipTax LawState Tax CommissionCPLR Article 78Tax LiabilityBusiness Expenses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Haufler v. Cambrook Fabrics Co.

An outside salesman in New York City was injured when he tripped entering a cafeteria for lunch while on his way to a client. The employer and carrier appealed a decision awarding benefits, arguing the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The board found no departure from employment, considering it a reasonable incident for an outside worker. The court, citing Matter of Relkin v. National Transp. Co., affirmed the decision, concluding the meal was sufficiently related to the time and place of work and the promotion of the employer’s business.

Workers' CompensationOutside SalesmanCourse of EmploymentMealtime InjuryAppellate DivisionAccident Arising Out of EmploymentDeviation from EmploymentWork-Related IncidentEmployer LiabilityAffirmed Decision
References
1
Case No. ADJ8878991
Regular
Jan 31, 2014

JAY SCHETTLER vs. ALLIED BEVERAGES, INC.; CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of the administrative law judge's finding of injury. The applicant, a route salesman, claimed he stepped on glass, injuring his left foot, which was corroborated by medical records showing a cut and the applicant's delayed awareness due to diabetic neuropathy. Defense witness testimony also supported the applicant's claim of cutting his toe at work. The Board found the applicant's testimony credible and the medical evidence sufficient to establish the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factterritory route salesmanmechanism of injurydiabetic neuropathycredibilitymedical recordsReport and Recommendationurgent care
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pochter v. State Tax Commission

The case concerns Leonard Pochter, an outside commission salesman, challenging a State Tax Commission determination classifying him as an independent contractor, thus subjecting him to unincorporated business tax for 1966-1972. Pochter contended he was an employee of two wholesale apparel firms, which would exempt him from the tax. Despite some company restrictions and requirements, the Commission found a lack of substantial control over his sales methods. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, citing insufficient evidence of employer supervision to establish an employee relationship, thereby dismissing Pochter's petition.

unincorporated business taxindependent contractor statusemployee statuscommission salesmantax assessmentCPLR Article 78State Tax Commissionapparel industryemployer control testtax law interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gordon v. Paul

A traveling salesman suffered a stroke in September 1987 due to a demanding work schedule, leading him to file a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Board determined the stroke was causally related to his employment and awarded benefits. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed the decision. While the court found Workers' Compensation Law § 21 inapplicable, it affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding it was supported by substantial medical evidence. Expert testimony indicated that the claimant's pre-existing conditions, coupled with work-related stress, likely contributed to his cerebral hemorrhage.

StrokeCausally Related DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTraveling SalesmanHeavy Work ScheduleCerebral HemorrhageCardiovascular DiseaseHypertensionWork-Related StressSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Purcell v. American SIP Corp.

Decedent, a salesman, was killed in a collision while returning from a sales meeting. Police reports indicated erratic driving, and a blood alcohol level of 0.23% was found, along with alcohol bottles in the vehicle. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the widow's claim for benefits, ruling the accident was solely due to intoxication, thereby rebutting the presumption under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (4). This decision was affirmed on appeal, as the court found substantial evidence in the record supported the Board's conclusion, despite conflicting expert opinions on accident avoidance and related issues.

IntoxicationWorkers' CompensationFatal AccidentBlood Alcohol ContentErratic DrivingSalesmanAppellate ReviewPresumption RebuttalSole CauseExpert Testimony
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Horton

The dissenting opinion, written by Casey, J. and concurred by Levine, J., argues against overturning the board's finding that the claimant had 'good cause' for leaving employment. The claimant, a salesman on straight commission, earned only $700 over 22 weeks, with no commissions in the last three, prompting him to quit to seek more remunerative work to support his family. The dissent distinguishes this from previous cases where fixed wages were the issue, emphasizing that the board is not solely bound by Labor Law § 593 (subd 2, par [d]) when compensation is inadequate to provide basic support. The opinion concludes that the board's decision, supported by substantial evidence and a rational basis, should be affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceGood Cause for Leaving EmploymentCommission-Based CompensationWage InadequacyLabor Law § 593Substantial EvidenceDissenting OpinionClaimant BenefitsFinancial SupportEmployment Termination
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 22 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