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. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. ADJ7813892
Regular
Oct 26, 2018

LEOBARDO GIJON (Deceased), CELEDONIA MARTINEZ (Widow), ESAU GIJON vs. ROBERT WAYNE ROBINSON, DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case concerns the fatal injury of Leobardo Gijon, who was run over by a backhoe on the property of uninsured employer Robert Wayne Robinson. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is reconsidering its prior decision that Gijon's death arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment (AOE/COE). The defendant argues the WCAB failed to adequately address the AOE/COE issue, contending Gijon was operating the backhoe for personal reasons. However, the WCAB found substantial evidence that Gijon's operation of the backhoe was authorized by the employer and reasonably contemplated by the employment, especially as it was to be considered payment for ongoing work. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

AOE/COEUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundDeceased employeeFatal injuryBackhoe accidentWelding workCompensable injuryCourse of employmentDual purpose doctrineZone of danger
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Craig v. Jefferson Auto Painting Co.

The claimant, an automobile sander and polisher, sustained eye injuries when a coemployee threw a chemical solution during an assault. The incident occurred after the claimant refused to participate in a false accusation against a foreman, leading to threats during working hours and the actual assault immediately after work, just outside the employer's premises. The Workers' Compensation Board determined the assault was work-connected and within the reasonable time and space limits of employment, thus finding the resultant disability compensable. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, challenging the applicability of the proximity rule and the determination that the incident occurred in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, relying on the 'continued altercation rule' which allows recovery for work-connected quarrels extending beyond employment limits, and emphasized that an employee remains in the course of employment until a suitable opportunity to leave the workplace is provided.

Workers' CompensationAssaultWork-Connected InjuryEmployment ScopeContinued Altercation RulePremises LiabilityCoemployee MisconductDisability BenefitsAppealJudicial Review
References
3
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

Anowai v. Holiday Inn

Claimant, a security officer, was struck on the head by falling facade debris from an adjacent building shortly after completing his shift at a Manhattan hotel. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, deeming it within the area of egress. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the accident did not occur as an incident or risk of employment because it happened on a public street, in front of a separate building, and involved a hazard outside the employer's control. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to overturn its factual findings regarding the nexus between the accident and the claimant's employment. The court reiterated that while risks near the employment situs can merge with employment risks, the Board's discretionary determination of such risks should be respected.

Accidental InjuryScope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleEgress and IngressStreet RiskPublic SidewalkEmployer ControlFactual FindingsAppellate ReviewSecurity Officer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1995

Claim of Wint v. Hotel Waldorf Astoria

The claimant, employed by Hotel Waldorf Astoria, was involved in an altercation in January 1990 and subsequently terminated. Despite termination, payroll records were maintained, and the claimant remained in employment status as a union delegate until a grievance hearing in February 1990. On January 26, 1990, the claimant returned to the Hotel to pick up her paycheck and was injured after slipping and falling. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded this decision. A new WCLJ found the injury occurred in the course of employment, which the Board affirmed. The Hotel appealed this decision, contending that no employer-employee relationship existed at the time of the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the determination that the claimant was an employee.

Workers' CompensationEmployment StatusAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer-Employee RelationshipUnion DelegateCollective Bargaining AgreementPaycheck CollectionTermination DisputeSubstantial Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McLeod v. Ground Handling, Inc.

This case addresses whether an accident occurring on a public street, away from the immediate place of employment but near the workplace, arose out of and in the course of employment. The court examined the 'gray area' where risks of street travel merge with employment risks, emphasizing the need for a special hazard at the accident point and a close association of the access route with the premises. The Board found no special hazard on the county road, which was used by the general public and not controlled by the employer. Consequently, the accident was deemed a risk shared by the general public, not related to the claimant's employment. The decision affirming the Board's finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment was upheld.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentOff-premises AccidentSpecial Hazard RuleStreet RiskGoing and Coming RulePublic RoadAccess RouteEmployer ControlAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ4276340 RDG 0095395 ADJ7960157
Regular
Aug 15, 2013

David Sandrock vs. Independent Business Forms, Inc., Preferred Employers Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and amended a prior decision regarding David Sandrock's cumulative trauma claim. The WCAB found that Sandrock's cumulative trauma injury ending July 28, 2006, is not presumptively compensable because no claim form was filed with the employer, as required by Labor Code sections 5401 and 5402. The Board determined that the insurer, Preferred Employers, did not violate due process by submitting the case on briefs at a conference. The WCAB deferred the issue of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderCumulative TraumaPresumptive CompensabilityClaim Form90-Day Investigation PeriodDue ProcessIndustrial InjuryAOE/COE
References
1
Case No. ADJ4628737
Regular
Mar 08, 2010

FREDDIE HENSON vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Fresno's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding that Freddie Henson sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Board found that Henson's training, though part of a university program, was directly beneficial to his role as a reserve deputy sheriff and was impliedly authorized by the County. The injury occurred during a training scenario, exposing him to dangers inherent in his employment as a law enforcement officer. Therefore, the Board concluded Henson was acting within the course of his employment when injured.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReserve Deputy SheriffCriminology 108Fresno StateAOE/COEcourse of employmentimpliedly authorizeddirect benefitjob functionstraining scenario
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2005

Claim of Gutierrez v. Courtyard by Marriott

The claimant's daughter, a guest services agent at the Courtyard by Marriott hotel, was found murdered in an employee restroom while on duty. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge granted the claimant's application for death benefits, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed this decision. The court affirmed, holding that the death occurred during the course of employment and arose out of employment, citing the boyfriend's jealousy over the decedent's interactions with hotel customers as the necessary nexus. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying an adjournment pending a criminal trial or in excluding unreliable hearsay evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsArising out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentWorkplace MurderPersonal AnimosityStatutory PresumptionHearsay Evidence AdmissibilityAdjournment DiscretionWorkers’ Compensation Board Appeal
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 11,120 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