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. ADJ7505154
Regular
Nov 18, 2011

LATONYA SIMS vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to rescind an earlier finding that applicant LaTonya Sims sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board determined that the robbery and assault were not sufficiently connected to her employment as a bus operator. Citing case law, the Board concluded that personal assaults, such as this robbery for the applicant's purse and cash, do not arise out of employment when the employment merely provides a stage for the event and the assailant's motive is purely personal. Therefore, the applicant's claim was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLatonya SimsLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authoritybus operatorinjury arising out of employmentinjury in course of employmentpersonally motivated robberygoing and coming rulethird-party assaultbunkhouse rule
References
Case No. ADJ9725488
Regular
Nov 13, 2015

Norris Hollie vs. Management Training Corporation, Zurich American Insurance Company, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration for applicant Norris Hollie, upholding a finding that his right knee injury on April 27, 2014, did not arise out of or occur in the course of his employment. The Board agreed that Hollie's participation in a continuing medical education program, while necessary to maintain his license, was not a reasonable expectation of his employment as a physician. There was no evidence of employer mandate, knowledge, or encouragement of this specific off-duty educational activity. Therefore, the injury sustained during this program was not deemed industrial.

Continuing educationMedical license renewalOff-duty activityReasonable expectancy of employmentCourse of employmentArising out of employmentIndustrial injuryPetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJ Report
References
Case No. ADJ6869652
Regular
Jul 07, 2011

Alma Salinas Renteria vs. OVER HILL FARMS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding no injury arising out of and in the course of employment. This denial was based on the Administrative Law Judge's report, which adopted the reasoning that the Panel QME's opinion constituted substantial evidence. The QME's thorough examination and review of records supported the conclusion that the applicant's subjective complaints were unrelated to her employment. Furthermore, the applicant's testimony was deemed not credible by the WCJ, especially when contrasted with HR testimony regarding company procedures.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of ReconsiderationPanel QMESubstantial EvidenceDr. ShermanSubjective ComplaintsArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentAOE/COE
References
Case No. ADJ2380588 (OXN 0148045)
Regular
Jul 11, 2011

Dann Shubin vs. Southwest Airlines; Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered by CAMBRIDGE PASADENA

This case concerns a pilot injured in a car accident while on a mandatory rest period after completing flights at his domicile airport. The defendant airline argued the injury was not compensable under the "going and coming" rule, as the pilot was on his own time and not engaged in employer duties. The Appeals Board reversed the WCJ's finding, determining the pilot's release at his domicile airport marked the end of his employment-related travel. The Board concluded the pilot was not on a special mission or acting as a commercial traveler, thus his injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment.

Domicile airportGoing and coming ruleReserve availability periodReserve rest periodSpecial missionCommercial traveler exceptionIndustrial injuryCompensable injuryCourse of employmentArising out of employment
References
Case No. ADJ7500739
Regular
May 25, 2012

SAMIRA HASAN vs. AMERICAN SHIELD PRIVATE SECURITY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior finding, ruling that Samira Hasan, a security guard, sustained an industrial injury. Hasan was struck by a car while crossing the street for coffee shortly before her shift began, having signed in and received implied approval from her supervisor. The Board found this to be a compensated coffee break exception to the "going and coming" rule, thus arising out of and in the course of employment. One Board member dissented, giving greater weight to the administrative law judge's credibility findings regarding the supervisor's testimony.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurycourse of employmentarising out of employmentgoing and coming rulecompensated lunch breaksign-in sheetsupervisor approvalcredibility findingsdissenting opinion
References
Case No. ADJ19575926
Regular
Jun 30, 2025

MIGUEL ENRIQUE MARTINEZ CASTILLO vs. AROSA HOME CARE, NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding that applicant, a caregiver, sustained an industrial injury to multiple body parts while employed. Defendant argued for re-opening the record to present new evidence and contended that the injury occurred after the applicant clocked out, thus not arising from employment, and questioned applicant's credibility. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding insufficient diligence for new evidence and concluding that clocking out did not negate the industrial nature of the injury as applicant was still performing duties incidental to his employment on the premises. The Board affirmed the WCJ's credibility findings.

Industrial injuryCaregiverClocking outCourse of employmentArising out of employmentPetition for reconsiderationReopen recordNew evidenceMandatory settlement conferenceDiscovery
References
Case No. ADJ2925672 (MON 0319752) ADJ176214 (MON 0319757)
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN vs. WARNER BROTHERS STUDIO FACILITIES, WARNER BROTHERS WORKERS' COMP.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied George Zimmerman's petition for reconsideration regarding a March 26, 2004 injury, agreeing that it did not arise out of his employment. However, the Board granted reconsideration to correct a mathematical error in the permanent disability award for a cumulative trauma back injury, adjusting the award from 31.5% to 30.5% after a 50% apportionment to non-industrial factors. The Board affirmed the WCJ's determination regarding the apportionment for the cumulative trauma injury, while clarifying that the specific March 26, 2004 injury was not industrial. The Amended Findings and Award were modified to reflect the corrected permanent disability rating and attorney fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryBack InjuryLeft Knee InjuryApportionmentPermanent Disability RatingAgreed Medical ExaminerTemporary Disability
References
Case No. ADJ3715225 (SBE 0341276)
Regular
Dec 08, 2008

MICHAEL COYER vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

Applicant's injury claim denied; while on administrative leave, his injury from a fall off his own roof while repairing storm damage did not arise out of his employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardfirefighteradministrative leaveindustrial injuryback and spinal cordstorm damageroof repairLabor Code section 3600.4preservation of propertymandatory settlement conference
References
Case No. ADJ6837333
Regular
Apr 28, 2011

GUILLERMO MARTIN vs. QUALITY FORMING, INC., CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted and incorporated the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found the applicant's claim of injury was not credible and was filed in retaliation for his termination. The judge's credibility finding, entitled to great weight, was upheld. Therefore, the applicant's claim that he sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment was not supported.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenialCredibility FindingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Findings and OrdersInjury Arising Out Of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentRetaliationTermination
References
Case No. ADJ10102327
Regular
Nov 17, 2016

Nicolle Rowe vs. Road Dog Drivers, LLC, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that an applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The applicant was injured in a car accident while en route to pick up her supervisor to travel to a client meeting. The Board found that the "going and coming" rule did not bar recovery as the applicant was engaged in a "special mission" for her employer. This mission involved an extraordinary deviation from her routine commute, specifically at the employer's benefit and request.

Going and coming rulespecial mission exceptioncourse of employmentinjury arising out of employmentworkers' compensationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJmotor vehicle accidentbusiness trip
References
Showing 1-10 of 453 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