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. SJO 0227040
Regular
Nov 15, 2007

LISA HOLDERMAN vs. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA/SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a prior award, and found no serious and willful misconduct by the employer. While the employer had knowledge of a dangerous condition involving lifting a disabled child's wheelchair, their actions, including requests for a specialized van, were deemed a grossly careless omission rather than the deliberate, quasi-criminal conduct required for serious and willful misconduct. Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to the 50% increase in compensation previously awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardserious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardchildren's counselor/aideindustrial injuryleft shoulderright footspine
References
Case No. ADJ6983222
Regular
Aug 21, 2012

ELAINE DONLIN vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the previous award of increased compensation for serious and willful misconduct. The Board found insufficient evidence that the employer knew of a dangerous condition and deliberately failed to act, which is required to prove serious and willful misconduct. While the injury may have involved negligence, it did not rise to the level of quasi-criminal conduct necessary for an enhanced award. Therefore, the applicant was awarded nothing further beyond the resolved underlying claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code section 4553Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationVariable Height Extendo (VHE)Crush InjuryPermanent DisabilityGross NegligenceTraining Deficiencies
References
Case No. ADJ11079458
Regular
Feb 19, 2020

MARCELINO GOROSTIETA (Deceased); REYNA RAMIREZ vs. RANCH OF THE GOLDEN HAWK; EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that the applicant failed to prove serious and willful misconduct by the employer, Ranch of the Golden Hawk. The applicant alleged the employer's gross negligence in hiring an unlicensed contractor who subsequently hired the deceased. However, the Board determined the employer's manager, while careless in relying on a subordinate's recommendation, did not exhibit the required "quasi-criminal" disregard for safety. The evidence did not establish the employer knowingly placed the employee in a situation of obvious and extreme danger, distinguishing it from prior cases.

Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code section 4553Cal/OSHAwillful blindnessconscious disregardlicensed contractorworker safetyquasi-criminalemployer liabilitynegligence
References
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
Case No. ADJ3897299 (ANA 0372417)
Regular
Aug 19, 2009

CARMEN SANTANGELO vs. NEWPORT MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN \u0026 ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Daniel Escamilla's petition for removal, which sought to rescind an order denying his requests for an appointed attorney and paid trial transcripts. The Board found that the administrative law judge correctly determined that the authority to remove a representative's privilege to appear before the Board rests solely with the Board itself, not the WCJ. Issues of sanctions and attorney fees under Labor Code section 5813 were also not deemed quasi-criminal, further supporting the denial. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAppointment of AttorneyTrial TranscriptsIndigencyLivelihoodLien ClaimantsQuasi-Criminal ProceedingsRevocation ProceedingsLabor Code Section 4907
References
Case No. ADJ9669522
Regular
Jul 24, 2017

NIOCHE ADAMS vs. MURCHINSON & CUMMING, LLP, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's attempt to bar a Labor Code section 132a claim due to a statute of limitations argument. The defendant argued the claim was time-barred because the initial petition was unverified and the verified petition was filed late. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) treated the defendant's petition as one for reconsideration and denied it. The WCAB held that a failure to verify a pleading is a curable defect and an amendment to remedy this defect relates back, even if filed after the statute of limitations has run.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 132astatute of limitationsverified petitionfiling defectthreshold issuequasi-civilquasi-criminalamendment
References
Case No. ADJ10013565
Regular
Nov 05, 2018

ANTONIO GUZMAN vs. KLEAN SWEEP PARKING LOT SERVICE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted Trucare Pharmacy's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinding the prior order to stay Trucare's lien. The WCAB found that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof that Trucare was "controlled" by a criminally charged provider as defined by Labor Code section 139.21(a)(3). Specifically, there was no evidence that John Garbino, the criminally charged provider, was an officer, director, or 10% shareholder of Trucare Pharmacy. Therefore, Trucare's lien is not subject to a stay under Labor Code section 4615 and the case is returned for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 4615criminally charged providerjoint venturepartnershiplien claimantprovider statuscontrolled entitystatutory interpretationdue processadministrative director
References
Case No. Misc. No. 254
En Banc
Jan 20, 2012

Applicant vs. Respondent

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Daniel Escamilla's Petition for Change of Venue, denied his Request for an Immediate Stay, but granted his Petition for Removal. The decision affirmed the relieving of his counsel and continued the hearing to provide a final opportunity to obtain new counsel.

Petition for Change of VenuePetition for RemovalRequest for Immediate Stay of ProceedingsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Relief of CounselDue ProcessQuasi-Criminal NatureLabor Code Section 5501.6Labor Code Section 4907
References
Case No. OAK 0277040
Regular
Sep 04, 2007

DOMINGO BERNAL vs. NEW UNITED MOTORS MANUFACTURING, INC.

This case concerns an employer's alleged serious and willful misconduct leading to an employee's injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior finding, determining the applicant failed to prove the employer knew of a dangerous condition and disregarded the probable risk of serious injury. The Board found the applicant's evidence insufficient and contrary to employer testimony regarding complaints and the condition of the work area.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Petition for reconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeIndustrial injuryBurden of proofNegligenceQuasi-criminal natureCredibility
References
Case No. ADJ3144692 (FRE 0190318)
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

KATHRYN FARPELLA vs. R & L BROSAMER, INC.

This case concerns a claim for increased benefits due to an employer's alleged serious and willful misconduct following a fatal industrial injury. The applicant, widow of the deceased worker, argued the defendant employer failed to adequately support a retaining wall, leading to its collapse and her husband's injury. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the judge's finding that the employer did not engage in serious and willful misconduct. While the employer was aware of soil challenges and in negotiations for solutions, there was no evidence they knew the probable consequence would be serious injury or deliberately failed to act. The employer was actively attempting corrective actions when the incident occurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryRetaining WallCollapsing WallRunning SandsSoil ConditionEngineering Challenges
References
Showing 1-10 of 295 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