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. 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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. VNO 0386181
Regular
Apr 05, 2007

SUSAN PASCALE vs. BLUE CROSS/WELLPOINT DENTAL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION on behalf of FREMONT INDEMNITY

This case concerns applicant Susan Pascale's claim for workers' compensation benefits due to industrial injuries resulting in fibromyalgia and other conditions. The WCJ awarded 80% permanent disability, apportioning 20% to applicant's pre-existing personality traits based on medical opinions. The Appeals Board affirmed this decision, finding the apportionment was supported by substantial medical evidence of causation, as allowed by recent statutory changes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSusan PascaleBlue Cross/Wellpoint DentalCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationFremont IndemnityVNO 0386181Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationApplicantDefendantWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ9896370
Regular
Oct 19, 2017

GUILLERMO RESTREPO vs. SAN GORGONIO MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ALPHA FUND

The applicant sought compensation for an industrial injury sustained in a car accident while commuting to work, arguing it fell under exceptions to the going and coming rule. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the administrative law judge's denial of the claim. The WCAB found the applicant's testimony regarding the necessity of using his personal vehicle for work-related tasks lacked credibility. Crucially, the evidence did not establish that the employer expressly or impliedly required the applicant to use his vehicle or that such use was a custom and practice relied upon by the employer.

Going and Coming RuleIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersWCJDirector of Environmental ServicesMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment ContractJob Duties
References
Case No. ADJ7582920
Regular
Mar 07, 2014

CRAIG SCHULTZ vs. JOINT TEST, TACTICS \u0026 TRAINING/JT3, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior finding, holding that the applicant's injury sustained during his commute to work is barred by the "going and coming" rule. While the WCJ found a transportation exception applied due to the employer potentially benefiting from the applicant's personal vehicle, the WCAB found no such exception was proven. The Board emphasized that the applicant was commuting outside of work hours in his personal car, and no evidence indicated he was engaged in a special mission or that the employer required him to use his own vehicle. Therefore, the applicant's claim was denied as it did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment.

Going and Coming RuleTransportation ExceptionIndustrial InjuryTechnical DrafterEdwards Air Force BasePersonal Vehicle UseEmployer BenefitCourse of EmploymentSpecial MissionLabor Code Section 3600
References
Case No. ADJ17834281
Regular
Nov 10, 2025

JOSE MARTINEZ vs. CUSTOM PIPE COUPLING, FEDERAL INSURANCE CO.

Applicant Jose Martinez sought reconsideration of a finding that his injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment, as it fell under the "going and coming" rule. The WCJ's initial finding was based on a May 26, 2023 motor vehicle accident occurring while Martinez was driving a company truck home for personal use, specifically to transport scrap metal given to him by his employer. The Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied reconsideration, concluding that none of the exceptions to the "going and coming" rule applied, as there was no benefit to the employer for Martinez to take the company truck home once the delivery task was removed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Errand ExceptionAOE/COEMotor Vehicle AccidentCompany Vehicle
References
Case No. ADJ12249871
Regular
Feb 03, 2023

ISABEL AKERLUNDH (Deceased) vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, PERMISSIBLY SELF INSURED

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration by the applicant's dependents following the denial of their workers' compensation claim. The applicant, Isabel Akerlundh, a Behavioral Health Specialist, died in a car accident while commuting to work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the injury was barred by the "going and coming rule." The Board found no evidence that the applicant was performing services for her employer or that an exception to the rule applied to her commute, as county vehicles were available and use of a personal vehicle was not required.

GOING AND COMING RULECOURSE OF EMPLOYMENTARISING OUT OF EMPLOYMENTPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEREPORT AND OPINION ON DECISIONBEHAVIORAL HEALTH SPECIALISTCOUNTY OF RIVERSIDEPERSONAL VEHICLE USE
References
Case No. ADJ14015513
Regular
Feb 15, 2023

BRADEN NANEZ vs. 3 STONEDEGGS, INC., TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board rescinded the initial Findings and Order, finding the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely due to defective service. The Board applied the commercial traveler rule, determining the applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The claim is not barred by the going and coming rule or intoxication, and the applicant sustained a fractured right femur. Issues of traumatic brain injury and bruised lung are deferred for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationOpinion and DecisionFindings and OrderApplicantEmployerAdjustedAdjudication NumberRedding District OfficeInjury Arising Out of and In the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ7332384
Regular
Jul 19, 2011

DEBORAH CULP vs. UNITED HEALTH GROUP, U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY INSURANCE, Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the applicant's claim. The applicant argued her injury during an extended break en route to a PTA meeting was compensable. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment. This conclusion was based on stipulated facts indicating the accident occurred during more than a lunch break, for a personal errand unrelated to employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedStipulated FactsAOE/COEGoing and Coming RulePersonal Comfort DoctrineCompensable InjuryNon-compensable InjuryPaid Lunch Break
References
Case No. ADJ10864843
Regular
Nov 15, 2018

YOLANDA PLASCENCIA vs. HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA, SOMPO AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who sustained injuries after falling into a pothole on her employer's premises during a break. The applicant was in the process of switching vehicles with her daughter when the incident occurred. The defendant argued the injury was not AOE/COE, as the personal vehicle exchange served no employer benefit and the personal comfort doctrine did not apply. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the injury compensable under the personal comfort doctrine. The Board reasoned that it's reasonably contemplated for employees to access the employer's parking lot during breaks, and moving a personal car is a personal convenience incidental to employment.

AOE/COEPersonal Comfort DoctrineIndustrial InjuryCourse of EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJEmployer's PremisesPaid Break
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,007 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