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. SAC 0355949
Regular
Dec 14, 2007

DAVID DOLCINI vs. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC (PG&E)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant's injury was not caused by intoxication. The Board affirmed that the WCAB, not a physician, is the ultimate trier of fact and is not bound by the opinion of an agreed medical examiner. The WCJ's conclusion was based on the credible testimony of an investigating CHP officer who observed no signs of intoxication, and the applicant's own account of the accident, which indicated inattention rather than impairment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerTrier-of-factExpert OpinionCivil Law PrinciplesJudicial Council Civil Jury InstructionsBAJIEvidence CodeCHP Officer
References
Case No. ADJ7087449
Regular
Nov 02, 2012

ELVIRA VASQUEZ vs. DEL MONTE FOODS, ZURICH INSURANCE

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Elvira Vasquez against Del Monte Foods. The defendant sought reconsideration of a prior Appeals Board decision that found applicant sustained an industrial injury and that the defendant failed to prove intoxication was the proximate cause. The defendant argued the applicant's amphetamine use was established and impaired her function, making it a substantial factor in the injury. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, holding that a positive drug test alone is insufficient to prove intoxication or causation, citing precedent that requires further evidence of impaired function or substantial evidence of causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryLabor Code Section 3600(a)(4)Proximate CauseIntoxicationBurden of ProofAmphetaminesDrug TestImpaired Function
References
Case No. ADJ6641753
Regular
Jul 26, 2011

JESSIE BURKE vs. AP EXPRESS WORLDWIDE LLC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a finding regarding intoxication. While the initial judge found the applicant sustained an industrial injury, the defendant contested this, arguing the applicant's DUI plea barred recovery under Labor Code section 3600(a)(4). The Board affirmed the industrial injury finding but amended the specific finding to state the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof in establishing intoxication as a proximate cause. The Board gave significant weight to the trial judge's credibility determination and the applicant's argument that a nolo contendere plea to a misdemeanor is not an admission in civil cases.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(4)nolo contenderePenal Code section 1016.3proximate causeintoxicationburden of proofsubstantial evidencecredibility determinationindustrial injuryState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
Case No. ADJ10450656
Regular
Sep 27, 2017

ALEX RONALD PADILLA vs. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant's injury was not barred by the defense of intoxication. While drug tests showed the applicant tested positive for controlled substances, there was insufficient medical or expert evidence to prove intoxication or impairment at the time of the injury. The WCJ's credibility determinations, particularly regarding the applicant's testimony about his intoxication level and the employer's failure to present conclusive evidence, were given great weight.

ADJ10450656Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ credibility determinationintoxication defenseaffirmative defenseburden of proofcontrolled substancesdrug screen reportssurveillance film
References
Case No. ADJ10950502
Regular
Mar 10, 2020

ROBERT HANSEN (Deceased), DIANA HANSEN, MAYA HANSEN, CALLIE HANSEN, ROBERT GENE REINHARDT, Guardian Ad Litem For MATTHEW HANSEN and TAYLOR HANSEN vs. FREIGHT HANDLERS, LLC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the deceased sustained a compensable industrial injury causing death. The Board agreed with the WCJ that the defendant failed to prove the decedent's intoxication proximately caused the injury, despite acknowledging the decedent was intoxicated. Furthermore, the Board found substantial evidence supported the WCJ's conclusion that the death was not a suicide and that the decedent remained within the course of employment under the commercial traveler rule, even with his intoxication and the employer's zero-tolerance policy.

Compensable Industrial InjurySuicide DefenseIntoxication DefenseCourse of EmploymentCommercial Traveler RuleProximate CauseBurden of ProofSubstantial Evidence RuleCredibility DeterminationsZero Tolerance Policy
References
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
Case No. ADJ4009385
Regular
Nov 12, 2009

PHILLIP GLANTON vs. SECURITAS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that found the applicant's ankle injury compensable, despite the employer's defense of marijuana intoxication. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning, which found the employer failed to meet the burden of proof that intoxication was a substantial factor in causing the injury. The judge gave significant weight to the applicant's medical expert, who opined that a positive marijuana test does not necessarily correlate with psychomotor impairment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.substantial evidencePlace v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.SecuritasACE American InsuranceESISslip and fall
References
Case No. ADJ 871529
Regular
Aug 28, 2008

DAVID PETTYJOHN vs. MILLERICK ENGINEERING, MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY

Reconsideration granted to address miscalculation of applicant's average weekly earnings. WCJ's findings regarding intoxication and serious and willful misconduct affirmed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryForklift OperatorMillerick EngineeringMajestic Insurance CompanyAverage Weekly EarningsAffirmative DefenseIntoxicationSerious and Willful Misconduct
References
Case No. SBR 0335761
Regular
Feb 01, 2008

JAGDEV PANDHER vs. ROSS DISTRIBUTION, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in three sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's hand injury was compensable. The Board found the employer failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that alcohol intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury. Crucially, the available blood test results were inconclusive and explicitly stated they might not be accurate, and no witnesses observed the applicant exhibiting signs of intoxication at the time of the incident.

PandherRoss DistributionSedgwick Claims Management Servicesintoxication defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(4)proximate causepreponderance of the evidenceETOH mg/dLchain of custodyblood sample
References
Case No. ADJ6465992
Regular
Apr 04, 2023

WILLIAM HUFFORD vs. HOWELL'S FOREST HARVESTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior decision that denied applicant William Hufford's claim for benefits. The Board found that the defendants failed to prove either that Hufford was intoxicated at the time of his accident or that any potential intoxication was a proximate cause of the injury. Furthermore, the Board determined that even if the "going and coming rule" would normally apply, an exception exists because the employer provided the vehicle and it was used as an incident of employment. Consequently, Hufford's injury was found to have arisen out of and in the course of employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ6465992Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationCompensable InjuryArising Out of and in the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Intoxication DefenseProximate CauseGoing and Coming RuleVehicle-Use ExceptionBlood Alcohol Level
References
Showing 1-10 of 29 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