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. SFO 0499272
Regular
Jul 07, 2008

Helen Miller vs. Green Gulch Farm and Zen Center, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that Helen Miller was an employee of Green Gulch Farm and Zen Center and sustained an industrial injury to her left ankle. The Board found Miller was not a volunteer due to the extensive benefits received and the employer's control, and her jogging injury during a lunch break was a reasonable expectancy of employment, not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9). Therefore, her injury arose out of and occurred in the course of her employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardHelen MillerGreen Gulch Farm and Zen CenterEverest National InsuranceGallagher BassettSFO 0499272Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 3351Labor Code Section 3352(i)Employee definition
References
Case No. ADJ7850439
Regular
Oct 15, 2012

Edgar Tabo vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

The applicant, a police officer, injured himself in an off-duty bicycle crash. The Board denied compensation because the applicant failed to establish that his subjective belief of needing to train for an optional bicycle patrol course was objectively reasonable. His off-duty recreational activity did not meet the requirements for an exception to the exclusion for such injuries under Labor Code section 3600(a)(9). Therefore, the applicant takes nothing by way of his claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEdgar TaboCity and County of San Francisco Police DepartmentPermissibly Self-InsuredADJ7850439Oakland District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJindustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ9174605
Regular
May 12, 2015

WALTER SIMON vs. CITY OF VACAVILLE

This case involves a police officer injured while off-duty hiking with his dog on a steep trail. The City of Vacaville argued the injury was not compensable under Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) as it was voluntary recreational activity not connected to employment. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the initial award, and found the injury non-industrial. This decision was based on the applicant's subjective belief being objectively unreasonable given the limitations of his employer's Individual Fitness Plan, which excluded off-road activities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3600(a)(9)industrial injuryoff-duty exercisepolice officerrecreational activityreasonable expectancy of employmentIndividual Fitness Planpetition for reconsiderationsubjective belief
References
Case No. ADJ10153886
Regular
Apr 23, 2018

MICHAEL BARROS vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

The applicant, a sheriff's investigator, injured his right knee while jogging off-duty. The employer, County of Riverside Sheriff's Department, denied the claim, asserting it was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) as an off-duty recreational activity. The Appeals Board rescinded the initial findings, ruling the injury was not compensable because the applicant failed to demonstrate his subjective belief that jogging was objectively reasonable or required by his employment. General employer preferences for physical fitness or its mention in performance evaluations, without specific directives or testing, are insufficient to overcome the statutory bar.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(9)AOE/COEoff-duty recreational activitysubjective beliefobjectively reasonableEzzy testvocational expectationphysical fitness requirementsperformance evaluationssubstantial nexus
References
Case No. ADJ8321113
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

DANIEL YOUNG vs. COUNTY OF BUTTE, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and found that applicant Daniel Young did not sustain a compensable industrial injury. The WCAB determined that Young's injury, sustained during off-duty jumping jacks at home, was a result of voluntary participation in an athletic activity not reasonably expected or required by his employment as a correctional sergeant. This decision relied on Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) and precedent established in *City of Stockton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Jenneiahn)*, which held that a general expectation of maintaining physical fitness is insufficient for compensability. Therefore, Young's claim was denied as non-compensable.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(9)Ezzy testoff-duty recreational activityvoluntary participationreasonable expectancy of employmentcorrectional sergeantstrenuous physical contactsfitness testJenneiahnWilson
References
Case No. ADJ8026721
Regular
Apr 04, 2013

RADU VASELISCU vs. DAYCOM, INC.; TRAVELERS

This case involves a claim for workers' compensation where the applicant was injured playing golf on a Saturday. The defendant argues the injury is not work-related, as golf was a voluntary activity. However, the Workers' Compensation Judge found the applicant's participation was subjectively and objectively reasonable given the employer's expectation to promote company morale and the fact the applicant also performed work duties that day. Therefore, the Judge recommended denial of the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationInjury AOE/COEMandatory golf eventCompany moraleOff-duty recreational activityEzzy testSubjective beliefObjective reasonablenessEmployer-paid expenses
References
Case No. ADJ10351910
Regular
Aug 09, 2017

SELENA MCINTOSH vs. MILITARY DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether a California Army National Guard member injured during "active duty for training" under federal Title 10 is eligible for California workers' compensation benefits. The Board found that California Military and Veterans Code Section 340(b) expressly prohibits state workers' compensation benefits for service performed under Title 10. Therefore, the applicant cannot collect benefits under Division 4 of the Labor Code. While the applicant's VA benefits were denied, her recourse was to appeal that denial, not to pursue state workers' compensation.

Military Departmentlegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundTitle 10Labor Code Division 4Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJpsyche injurysexual assault
References
Case No. ADJ1688022 (VNO 0558018)
Regular
May 03, 2010

RONALD TORRES vs. FOREVER 21, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves a worker injured playing soccer off-duty on company property. The employer argued the injury was not compensable under Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) as it was voluntary recreational activity. The Board reversed the initial finding, holding that the worker's voluntary participation in the soccer game, which was not required by or a reasonable expectancy of employment, fell outside the scope of workers' compensation coverage. Therefore, the applicant's claim for benefits for his shoulder injury was denied.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(9)Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.off-duty recreational activityvoluntary participationreasonable expectancy of employmentexpressly or impliedly requiredsoccer game injuryindustrial injuryleft shouldercompensable injury
References
Case No. ADJ9994879
Regular
Mar 07, 2018

LEE HOLMES vs. FIRST GROUP OF AMERICA, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO.

The applicant, a bus driver, sought workers' compensation for injuries sustained during non-industrial eye treatment. The Board affirmed the trial judge's decision that the injury was not industrial because the employer did not require the applicant to undergo the specific medical treatment that led to the injury. The applicant's belief that maintaining vision was a condition of employment was insufficient to establish industrial causation. The Board distinguished this case from situations involving employer-directed medical treatment or off-duty recreational activities.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJQMEindustrial causationproximate causereasonable expectancy of employmentoff-duty recreational activityLatourette
References
Showing 1-10 of 910 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