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. ADJ1245747 (BAK 0140714)
Regular
Jul 14, 2009

BALDEMAR SANCHEZ vs. KINLEY CONSTRUCTION, AIG COSTA MESA

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct, thus denying additional benefits under Labor Code § 4553. The applicant had previously settled his industrial injury claim for $60,000, but the settlement explicitly excluded the serious and willful misconduct claim. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the employer's conduct, while negligent, did not rise to the level of serious and willful misconduct. The Board also noted the applicant's petition violated procedural rules regarding spacing, cautioning counsel for future compliance.

Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code § 4553Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact & AwardCompromise & ReleaseIndustrial InjuryPelvis InjuryHip InjuryAbdomen InjuryBilateral Knees Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ10173387; ADJ19907358; ADJ3052978; ADJ3882676; ADJ4063239; ADJ4429907; ADJ883851; ADJ8926536
Regular
Sep 22, 2025

AURORA MUNOZ vs. FIRST GROUP AMERICA, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a denial of increased benefits for serious and willful misconduct by her employer. The applicant, a bus driver, was injured when a passenger lift malfunctioned. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the employer did not engage in serious and willful misconduct, as they reasonably relied on a mechanic's report stating the vehicle was safe to operate after an electrical short. The Board also found no basis for a presumption of serious and willful misconduct due to the employer's alleged failure to respond to discovery requests, as such procedures are not typically applicable in workers' compensation proceedings.

Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code Section 4553Vehicle Inspection ReportPassenger LiftMechanic's Opinion"OK to Drive"Knowledge of DangerIntentional ActReckless DisregardAdverse Inference
References
11
Case No. ADJ2436436
Regular
Aug 01, 2019

CLEMENTE CASTRO vs. EDEN ROSE FARMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Clemente Castro's Petition for Reconsideration regarding his claim for serious and willful misconduct. The Board adopted the WCJ's report which found the claim barred by the statute of limitations under Labor Code section 5407. The WCJ determined that while the original application listed Labor Code section 4553, it did not meet the pleading requirements for a serious and willful misconduct claim. Furthermore, applicant failed to properly serve the employer with the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and willful misconductStatute of limitationsLabor Code section 4553Labor Code section 5407Petition for ReconsiderationApplication for Adjudication of ClaimWCJ reportPetition for Increased BenefitsElectro cution
References
3
Case No. ADJ9073927
Regular
Oct 08, 2015

CHRISTOPHER EASTWOOD (Deceased), MARGARET EASTWOOD (Widow) vs. COOPER CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denying serious and willful misconduct. The applicant's widow argued the employer's negligence caused her husband's death from heat exposure due to inadequate precautions. However, the Board found the evidence did not support serious and willful misconduct, citing the employer's provision of shade, water, and frequent breaks. Furthermore, the petition for reconsideration itself was procedurally flawed by being unverified and single-spaced.

Serious and willful misconductheat exposureAOE/COEWCJPetition for ReconsiderationCal/OSHALabor Code section 4553employer liabilityburden of proofquasi-criminal nature
References
8
Case No. ADJ10110995
Regular
Oct 05, 2016

PRESTON LEE BROWN SCOTT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order that he claimed was issued January 11, 2016, arguing a Compromise and Release did not settle his serious and willful misconduct claim. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely, noting the applicant filed his petition significantly late. Even if considered timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits, as a prior decision had already approved a Compromise and Release excluding the 132a claim. The Board clarified that while 132a claims are not subject to ADR, serious and willful misconduct claims are.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseArbitratorAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code Section 132aTimelinessOpinion and Order Dismissing PetitionDivision 4
References
0
Case No. STK 0204930
Regular
Jul 23, 2007

DARREN BUTLER vs. GRANT JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The employer argued the applicant's injury was due to serious and willful misconduct for jumping off a roof. The Board affirmed its prior decision, finding the applicant's actions constituted extreme poor judgment, not the quasi-criminal intent required for serious and willful misconduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardserious and willful misconductpetition for reconsiderationinjury causationemployer liabilitysupervisor instructionsgross negligenceMercer-Fraser Co.quasi-criminal qualitywanton disregard
References
1
Case No. ADJ1522893 (AHM 0151734)
Regular
Feb 09, 2012

MARIA PADILLA vs. SWK PROPERTIES, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

Applicant sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release agreement, arguing mutual mistake omitted her ongoing serious and willful misconduct claim. The Board dismissed the petition, finding applicant was not aggrieved. Applicant's serious and willful misconduct claim was never included in the settlement and remains available for pursuit. Therefore, no order or finding subject to reconsideration is currently at issue.

Compromise and ReleaseSerious and Willful MisconductPetition for ReconsiderationAggrieved PartyMutual MistakeWCJ ReportSettlement AgreementInsurance CarrierDismissalTrial Level
References
0
Case No. ADJ6886930
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

MARIA TERESA RODRIGUEZ vs. MOUNTAIN F ENTERPRISES INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order that reduced the agreed-upon attorney's fee in a death benefit and serious and willful misconduct compromise and release. The Board found the WCJ's reasons for the reduction inadequate and intended to amend the order to approve the original $38,500 attorney's fee. This is being done after providing applicant's counsel an opportunity to comply with procedural requirements regarding fee increases, and applicant notice of her right to seek independent counsel.

AMENDED COMPROMISE AND RELEASESERIOUS AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCTPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONGUARDIAN AD LITEMATTORNEY'S FEE REDUCTIONINDUSTRIAL INJURYDEATH CLAIMDEPENDENTSWAGESLABOR CODE
References
6
Case No. ADJ9170309
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

Miguel Mosqueda vs. City of Clearlake

Applicant Miguel Mosqueda sought reconsideration of a July 25, 2025 decision which found his injuries were not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct or violation of safety orders. Mosqueda, a maintenance worker, suffered catastrophic injuries, including paraplegia, after falling from a ladder while trimming a tree for the City of Clearlake. He contended that the employer violated several Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 sections related to safety, training, and equipment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct and that no alleged safety violation was the proximate cause of the accident.

Serious and willful misconductPetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderViolation of statuteViolation of safety orderCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3203Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(d)(1)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(e)(15)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(b)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(d)
References
1
Case No. ADJ13228350
Regular
Jul 14, 2025

Paul Janikowski vs. Tesla Motors, Inc.

Applicant Paul Janikowski, a production associate at Tesla Motors, Inc., suffered severe leg and ankle injuries in 2019 due to a machine malfunction involving a conveyor and skids. He alleged serious and willful misconduct by Tesla, arguing that the company failed to provide adequate safety protocols and reduced the job from a two-person task to a one-person task, forcing him to cross an energized conveyor. Despite defendant's arguments that safety protocols were in place and the operation met industry standards, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) found that the applicant met his burden of proof. The Appeals Board denied Tesla's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding of serious and willful misconduct by the employer.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Order and AwardWCJCal OSHAMercer-FraserJohns-ManvilleHawaiian PineappleDowden
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 17,846 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