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

Claim of Marotta v. Town & Country Electric, Inc.

The claimant, an electrician, was injured on March 14, 2005, while stopping for coffee en route to a job site, suffering herniated disks. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, deeming the coffee stop a deviation from employment. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the claimant’s brief, customary stop constituted a deviation. The court ruled that such a momentary break did not interrupt employment, and therefore, the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, reversing the Board's decision and remitting the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentPersonal Pursuit DoctrineMomentary DeviationCoffee Break InjuryHerniated DisksAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ReversalRemitted Case
References
12
Case No. ADJ6757153
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

GUSTAVO ACOSTA vs. NORM REEVES HONDA, TRAVELERS

This case concerns Gustavo Acosta's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision. The applicant claimed continuous trauma injury to multiple body parts while employed by Norm Reeves Honda. The employer denied the claim, asserting it was filed after applicant's termination and without timely notice of injury. The Administrative Law Judge found the applicant failed to prove reporting the injury to employer representatives or providing medical evidence of treatment prior to termination. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted the ALJ's report and denied the petition for reconsideration, giving great weight to the ALJ's credibility findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNorm Reeves HondaTravelersPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJ ReportGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.CredibilityContinuous TraumaLabor Code §3600(a)(10)
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harlan v. Harlan

This case involves a divorce proceeding focusing on temporary maintenance and the potential sale of the marital residence. The husband sought to fix temporary maintenance and compel the sale of their expensive home, citing financial strain. The wife, having recently retired, cross-moved for an upward deviation in maintenance and for the husband to cover household carrying charges. The court declined to order the immediate sale of the marital residence, adhering to the *Kahn v Kahn* precedent, despite acknowledging the financial impracticality. After assessing incomes and various statutory deviation factors, the court granted the wife an upward deviation, ordering the husband to pay $5,000 per month in temporary maintenance and awarded her $5,000 in legal fees.

Temporary MaintenanceDivorce LawMarital ResidencePendente Lite SaleIncome ImputationDeviation FactorsDomestic Relations LawSpousal SupportEquitable DistributionHigh Asset Divorce
References
30
Case No. SAL 0113698
Regular
Jul 06, 2007

Antonio Ruiz vs. Avalon Structural, ACE Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the finding that applicant Antonio Ruiz's injury did not arise out of employment. The Board found that applicant's deviation from his commute to obtain necessary safety masks for his job met the "special mission" exception to the going and coming rule. Consequently, the injury sustained during this deviation is deemed to have occurred within the course of employment.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSpecial Mission ExceptionGoing and Coming RuleIndustrial InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer BenefitImplied ConsentSafety EquipmentMasksMaterials
References
10
Case No. ADJ3218180 (EUR 0040749) ADJ4708435 (EUR 0040750)
Regular
Nov 19, 2010

ROBERT ZIMMERMAN vs. BRITT LUMBER COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an appeal of permanent disability ratings for an applicant's left upper extremity and right knee injuries. The defendant contests the ratings, arguing the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) and WCJ improperly deviated from AMA Guides methodology, particularly by combining impairment factors without adequate justification. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the AME's explanations for deviating from the Guides were insufficient. The matter is remanded for further proceedings to obtain a more adequately justified permanent disability rating.

WCABReconsiderationPermanent Disability RatingApportionmentAMA GuidesAlmaraz/GuzmanAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Grip LossStation and GaitDiagnosis Based Estimate
References
2
Case No. ADJ1805486 (GOL 0100327)
Regular
Apr 30, 2010

SUZANNE SINGER vs. DISNEYLAND, DISNEY WORLD WIDE SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves an employee, Suzanne Singer, injured in a car accident after attending an employer-sponsored service award dinner. The employer, Disneyland, argued the injury was non-industrial due to a major deviation from a special mission exception to the going and coming rule and intoxication. While the Appeals Board agreed the injury occurred after a substantial deviation from the special mission, they noted the employer failed to prove intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident and might be estopped from raising that defense. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the finding of no industrial injury but deleted the intoxication finding.

Special mission exceptionGoing and coming ruleDeviationIntoxication defenseEstoppelCredibility determinationCourse of employmentArising out of employmentCumulative trauma injuryService award dinner
References
12
Case No. ADJ10204167
Regular
Oct 17, 2017

MARTIN POIRIER vs. MERCY HOUSING, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant suffered injuries from an automobile accident. The defendant sought reconsideration of the original finding that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to admit the police report and applicant's recorded statement into evidence. While acknowledging issues with applicant's credibility, the Board affirmed the original finding, concluding that deviations from the commute route were minor and foreseeable. A dissenting opinion argued that the applicant's inconsistent statements and significant unaccounted-for time constituted a substantial deviation, thus abandoning employment.

AOE/COEgoing and coming rulerequired vehicle exceptionsubstantial deviationabandonment of employmentcredibility assessmentpolice reportrecorded statementcustom routeincidental personal acts
References
21
Case No. ADJ7948448
Regular
Nov 03, 1971

HENRY LOPEZ vs. WINDSOR SNF MANAGEMENT, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who, while on a work assignment, experienced a diabetic episode causing dizziness. He stopped at a nearby market to eat and subsequently slipped and fell, injuring his hip and knee. The employer argued the injury was outside the scope of employment due to a deviation and the going and coming rule. However, the WCJ found the deviation was reasonable under the personal comfort rule for a known medical condition, and the Appeals Board adopted this reasoning, denying reconsideration. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and resolved reasonable doubts in favor of the employee, consistent with precedent.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingInjury to left hip and left kneeDiabetic episodeLow blood sugarDeviation from work assignmentGoing and coming ruleInsbexual evidence
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03234 [238 AD3d 1454]
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

Matter of Ramales v. Frank & Nino's Pizza Corp.

Felipe Zamora Ramales, a pizzeria kitchen assistant, suffered severe burns after falling down stairs while attempting to move a large pot of hot tomato sauce. His employer and its carrier controverted his workers' compensation claim, arguing intoxication was the sole cause of the accident and that he deviated from the scope of his employment. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's disallowance, establishing the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the carrier failed to rebut the presumption that intoxication was not the sole cause and that claimant's actions did not constitute a deviation from employment sufficient to preclude benefits.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefenseScope of EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityAppellate ReviewBurn InjuryPizzeria WorkerBlood Alcohol ContentCredibility AssessmentHearsay Evidence
References
8
Case No. ADJ9414071 ADJ10133403
Regular
Aug 13, 2018

Kevin McCoy vs. State of California - Pleasant Valley State Prison

This case involves an appeal regarding the permanent disability ratings for a correctional officer's right ankle and respiratory system (Valley Fever) injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case to the WCJ for further proceedings. The Board found that the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) ankle impairment rating was properly calculated, but the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) report on the respiratory injury did not sufficiently explain its deviation from strict AMA Guides application. The Board emphasized that medical evaluators must adhere to the AMA Guides or clearly justify any deviations to ensure substantial evidence.

WCABPleasant Valley State Prisonlegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundKevin McCoyADJ9414071ADJ10133403permanent disabilityright anklerespiratory system
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 195 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