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

Mitchell v. Route 21 Associates

The case involves an appeal by defendants Route 21 Associates and Max Finkelstein, Inc., from an order denying their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff, an employee of Rapid Dismantling Corporation, was injured while removing asbestos from a warehouse owned by Route 21 Associates and leased by Max Finkelstein, Inc. Applying New Jersey law, the court found that a landowner is not liable for injuries to an independent contractor's employee resulting from the contracted work, provided there was no interference. The appellants demonstrated they exercised no supervision or control, and the respondents failed to present a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the order was reversed, summary judgment was granted, and the complaint and cross claims against the appellants were dismissed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLandowner LiabilityIndependent ContractorAsbestos RemovalNew Jersey LawPremises LiabilityDuty of CareNegligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valleriani v. Route 390 Nissan LLC

Plaintiff Maria Valleriani brought an employment discrimination action against Route 390 Nissan LLC, alleging a sexually hostile work environment and unlawful retaliation leading to constructive discharge under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the harassment was not gender-based, not severe or pervasive, and Plaintiff failed to utilize internal complaint mechanisms. The Court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims, citing genuine issues of material fact. However, the Court granted summary judgment on the retaliation claims, finding Plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between her discrimination complaints and the alleged constructive discharge, as her own testimony indicated her departure was primarily due to complaints about bank fraud.

DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationConstructive DischargeTitle VIINYSHRLSummary JudgmentSexual HarassmentEmployment LawGender Discrimination
References
47
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

In re the Claim of Cornwall

The case involves an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board concerning a claimant who worked for an employer engaged in horticulture. While 40% of the claimant's work was agricultural and thus considered noncovered employment, the remaining 60% involved selling the employer's products extensively and at a considerable distance from the horticultural site. The central legal question was whether this selling activity constituted work "as an incident to farming operations" under Labor Law § 511, subd. 6, which would exempt it from unemployment insurance coverage. The court found that the claimant's role as a salesman, involving substantial sales promotion over a large territory, did not meet the statutory exemption for "delivering to a market" as an incident to farming. Consequently, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, implicitly denying benefits by affirming the noncovered status of the selling work, was unanimously affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceAgricultural WorkerSalesmanNoncovered EmploymentLabor LawFarming OperationsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewHorticultureEmployment Status
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bailey v. SEABOARD BARGE CORP.

Plaintiff James Bailey, a tankerman, filed a lawsuit under the Jones Act and common law negligence against his employer and other defendants for injuries sustained while attempting to board a barge. Bailey claimed that an unsafe access route and a lack of clear instructions contributed to his fall into the water from a mothballed barge. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that a safe route was available and they were not responsible for the area where Bailey was injured. The court granted the defendants' motions, concluding that Bailey failed to prove a breach of duty of care or proximate causation, as he chose an unsafe alternate route not under the defendants' control.

Jones ActMaritime LawSeamen's InjuriesSummary JudgmentNegligenceLandowner LiabilitySafe Place to WorkBarge AccidentProximate CauseDuty of Care
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boston v. Medical Services for Women

Claimant, a medical secretary, sustained serious injuries from an acid attack while leaving her workplace, en route to a parking garage. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant's injury was compensable, finding it occurred within the precincts of employment, as the route was a usual means of ingress and egress. The employer failed to provide adequate proof of a personal motive for the attack. Subsequently, the Board's decision and amended decision were affirmed on appeal.

Acid AttackCompensable InjuryIngress and EgressEmployment PrecinctsEmployer LiabilityAppellate AffirmationPersonal Motive DefenseMedical Secretary InjuryWorkplace AssaultBoard Ruling
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Harris v. New York State Office of General Services

Claimant, a tour guide for the Office of General Services in Albany, sustained a right shoulder injury after slipping on ice on a public street while en route to work from a state-owned parking garage. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a prior decision, finding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was no special hazard at the accident site to satisfy the 'gray area' exception for accidents occurring off-premises on a public street, despite the close proximity of the access route to the employment situs.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentOff-Premises AccidentPublic StreetSpecial HazardAccess RouteGray Area DoctrineAppealBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01458 [192 AD3d 1291]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2021

Matter of Holness (City Coll.)

Claimant Bueferd Holness, a laborer, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits. Holness sustained a foot injury on a public sidewalk after his shift at City College. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found the claim compensable, but the Board reversed, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing that the accident did not involve a special hazard related to employment and the chosen route was not a recommended egress or business-purpose route, thus failing to meet the criteria for compensability for off-premises injuries.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Hazard ExceptionPublic Sidewalk InjuryAppellate ReviewInjury Off-PremisesSubstantial EvidenceCompensabilityLaborer Injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ8365866
Regular
May 02, 2014

CESAR MARTIN vs. STUDIO CHAMELEON LLC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant's injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The Board found the applicant's stop at a friend's house to retrieve a phone charger benefited the employer by enabling continued communication. Additionally, the auto accident occurred after the applicant left his friend's house and was en route back to the employer's premises on a normal route, thus concluding any deviation. The Board also clarified the legal distinction between "scope of employment" (a tort concept) and "course of employment" (a workers' compensation term of art).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationdeniedcourse of employmentscope of employmentmotor vehicle accidentmaterial deviationemployer's instructionsapplicant's benefitpersonal comfort
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bernard v. Holiday House of Sloatsburg

The claimant, a stockroom manager at a restaurant, was injured in a fall at a gas station adjacent to the New York State Thruway on her way to work on November 10, 1980. She was following a customary route from a designated employee parking area to an overpass leading to her workplace. The fall occurred due to spilled diesel oil. The central legal question was whether this off-premises accident arose out of and in the course of her employment, thereby entitling her to compensation. The court affirmed the decision, ruling that the accident, which took place on the normal and most accessible route to employment and involved a hazard incurred along the way, was indeed a hazard of employment.

Workers' CompensationOff-Premises InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentEmployee ParkingNormal RouteHazard of EmploymentRockland CountyStockroom ManagerThruway Accident
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 150 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