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. ADJ10130162
Regular
Oct 26, 2016

WANDA JONES vs. ALTA BATES MEDICAL CENTER, administered by SUTTER HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer argued Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) barred the claim, as the applicant was engaged in off-duty recreation. However, the Board found the injury occurred on employer premises within the scope of employment, applying the "premises line rule" of the going and coming rule. The applicant's intent to engage in a walk after leaving the premises did not negate compensability for an injury sustained before exiting the employer's parking garage.

WCABLabor Code section 3600(a)(9)going and coming rulepremises line ruleoff-duty recreational activitypost-shiftparking garagestairwellnursing assistantbad faith denial
References
Case No. ADJ8935299
Regular
Jan 03, 2014

DAVID LOW vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a FedEx driver who sustained injuries from a fall on the employer's premises during an unpaid lunch break. The Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the injury was industrial. The injury, resulting from an idiopathic coughing fit and subsequent fall on the employer's property, is compensable under the "personal comfort doctrine" and established case law regarding idiopathic falls on premises. The board affirmed that such injuries occurring on employer premises are compensable even if caused by non-work-related conditions.

AOE/COEunpaid lunch breakemployer's premisesidiopathic conditionpersonal comfort doctrineWCJPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationCounty of Contra Costa v. RamirezOrrala v. Harris Ranch
References
Case No. ADJ15799667
Regular
Mar 08, 2023

RICARDA DURAN SONIA TINEO TOLEDO vs. PRIORITY WORKFORCE, INC. dba MVP PAYROLL FINANCING LLC, PRIORITY BUSINESS SERVICES INC., UNITED WISCONSIN INSURANCE COMPANY administered by NEXT LEVEL ADMINISTRATORS

This case involves an applicant injured by a car while waiting for a ride home on her employer's premises after work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and found the injury compensable, holding that it arose out of and occurred in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Board clarified that the applicant's presence on employer premises while waiting for transportation home was within the scope of employment, not a material deviation. The WCAB rescinded the prior order and substituted a new one finding AOE/COE injury to the applicant's head, deferring other issues.

AOE/COECourse and Scope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RulePremises RulePersonal ConvenienceSubstantial DeviationMedical OpinionsPermanent Disability RatingQMEAMA Guides
References
Case No. ADJ20053254
Regular
Aug 21, 2025

JUAN SEDANO vs. CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY SAN FRANCISCO

A workers' compensation administrative law judge continued a trial for three weeks, prompting the applicant, Juan Sedano, to file a petition for removal alleging significant prejudice and irreparable harm. Despite the trial proceeding as scheduled, the applicant failed to provide notice of the trial's occurrence or withdraw the petition for removal. The Appeals Board found this lack of action inconsistent with the applicant's claim of harm due to delay. Consequently, the Board deemed the petition for removal moot and ordered its dismissal.

Petition for RemovalMootDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAdjudication NumberIrreparable HarmApplicant's AttorneysLack of ActionContradictory Premise
References
Case No. ADJ9816136
Regular
Sep 14, 2015

JERRY LINDSEY vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

This case involves a senior systems analyst who slipped and fell in Union Station while commuting home from work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to reverse a prior decision that found the injury compensable. The WCAB determined the injury is barred by the "going and coming rule" as the applicant was not on the employer's premises or benefiting the employer. Exceptions for premises line and travel expense did not apply because the employer did not control Union Station and the applicant was not paid for his commute.

Going and Coming RulePremises Line ExceptionTravel Expense ExceptionIndustrial InjurySenior Systems AnalystUnion StationLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityLACMTACompensabilitySpecial Mission
References
Case No. ADJ7108994
Regular
Dec 03, 2010

ALESCHAI HERNDON vs. CITY OF PASADENA

The applicant, Alehschai Herndon, sustained injuries when struck by a truck while crossing the street after parking her car in an employer-provided lot. Initially, she parked in an unauthorized area and was instructed to move, which she did after starting her work shift. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the injury AOE/COE under the "premises line" rule. The Board reasoned that by parking in the employer-provided lot, the applicant had entered the employer's premises, and her subsequent injury occurred within a reasonable margin of time and space from her workplace.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantCity of PasadenaIndustrial InjuryAOE/COEGoing and Coming RulePremises Line RuleEmployer-Provided Parking LotMoving VehicleUnauthorized Parking
References
Case No. ADJ11407589
Regular
Jun 25, 2019

RICARDO PENA vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming that the applicant's assault in the employer's unlit parking lot arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The Board found the assault was random and not personal, thus not barring compensation. The applicant was injured shortly after clocking out, and the employer's premises, including the dark parking lot, created a zone of risk. The Board deferred to the judge's credibility determination regarding the applicant's testimony.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRicardo Pena99 Cents Only StoresBroadspire ServicesADJ11407589Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJInjury arising out of and in the course of employmentEmployer's parking lot
References
Case No. ADJ7843441
Regular
Feb 15, 2013

MICHAEL MENDOZA vs. KELLY SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE c/o ESIS

In Mendoza v. Kelly Services, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant's injury, sustained while walking from an employer-assigned parking lot to the worksite, was not barred by the going and coming rule. The applicant was injured crossing a freeway on-ramp when a truck struck him. The Board reasoned that the applicant had already entered the employer's premises and the employment relationship had commenced when he was injured.

Going and coming ruleIndustrial injuryDeferred body partsParking lotEmployer premisesUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideParking placardFreeway on-rampAOE/COE
References
Case No. ADJ9171376
Regular
Feb 13, 2015

ROSALBA HERNANDEZ vs. TARGET CORPORATION, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found the medical evidence regarding applicant Rosalba Hernandez's cumulative trauma injury insufficient due to contradictory opinions from Dr. Roberts. The Board also indicated that the applicant's testimony, while not definitively proving her case, did not necessarily defeat her claim of cumulative trauma injury. Further development of the medical record is required to determine if an industrial injury occurred.

Cumulative traumaPQMEDr. Robertscontradictory opinionsmedical evidenceAOE/COEindustrial injuryreconsiderationfurther development of recordWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ7451542
Regular
Sep 03, 2013

ROGENE SAMFORD vs. SILICON MAPS

This case involves Rogene Samford's petition for reconsideration of a Finding of Fact denying her workers' compensation claim against Silicon Maps. The administrative law judge found that Samford's alleged injury did not occur in the course of her employment. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's reasoning that injuries sustained during unpaid, off-premises lunch periods are generally not compensable. The Board also noted deficiencies in the applicant's petition, including a lack of specific record references and factual assertions unsupported by evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinding of FactCourse of EmploymentUnpaid Lunch PeriodOff-Premises LunchCompensable InjuryWCJ ReportEvidentiary RecordDeposition Testimony
References
Showing 1-10 of 115 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