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. ADJ9781533
Regular
Aug 02, 2017

Rodolfo Boate vs. Truegreen Landcare, Zurich American Insurance Company

This case involves Rodolfo Boate's workers' compensation claim against Truegreen Landcare and Zurich American Insurance Company for injuries sustained during an altercation with a coworker. The defendant argued the claim was barred because Boate was the initial aggressor, citing his physical advance towards the coworker. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) finding that Boate's actions were in reasonable fear of bodily harm due to the coworker's prior severe threats and aggressive behavior. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's credibility determinations, finding no substantial evidence to reject them. Therefore, Boate's injury was deemed industrial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRODOLFO BOATETRUGREEN LANDCAREZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANYADJ9781533Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJCredibility determinationsGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05821 [174 AD3d 1245]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Ledney v. Boat-N-RV Warehouse

Claimant Chad Ledney sustained a work-related injury in 2009, leading to workers' compensation awards through 2017. In 2017, the employer's carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, submitting video surveillance that contradicted Ledney's testimony and presentation at medical appointments regarding his disability and ambulation without assistive devices. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a ruling finding a violation, imposing both mandatory and a discretionary penalty that permanently disqualified Ledney from future indemnity benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of material misrepresentations and that the discretionary penalty was not disproportionate given the egregious and lengthy deceptive behavior.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentationDisability BenefitsVideo SurveillanceIndemnity BenefitsPenaltiesAppellate ReviewCredibilityEvidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ7851259
Regular
Aug 19, 2014

RODOLFO FIGUEROA NAVARRO vs. NORTH BAY LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT, INC.

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by applicant Rodolfo Figueroa Navarro regarding injuries sustained in 2010 and 2011. The petition argues that the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) improperly admitted reports from Dr. Shah, alleging the doctor asked inappropriate questions about the applicant's residency status. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found Dr. Shah's questions permissible as part of a personal history inquiry for medical evaluation. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the admissibility of the medical reports and the WCJ's findings regarding the applicant's injuries and permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJQualified Medical EvaluatorDr. ShahDr. KaplanLabor Code 1171.5Government Code 11135residency statuspersonal history inquiry
References
1
Case No. ADJ3157275
Regular
Jan 10, 2014

RODOLFO PONCE vs. PACIFIC MOLDED TECHNOLOGY, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, CRUM & FORSTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has denied Rodolfo Ponce's Petition for Removal. The Board reviewed the petition and the administrative law judge's report, adopting the judge's reasoning for denial. This decision means the case will proceed as determined by the administrative law judge.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge ReportDeniedRodolfo PoncePacific Molded TechnologyUnited States Fire Insurance CompanyCrum & ForsterADJ3157275LAO 0871136
References
0
Case No. ADJ4266581 (RIV 0043684) ADJ459635 (AHM 0136605)
Regular
Aug 16, 2017

RODOLFO BARBA vs. UNIVERSAL FOREST PRODUCTS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant, Rodolfo Barba, filing a petition for reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was untimely. The WCAB clarified that a petition must be *received* by the board within 25 days of service (plus any applicable extensions), not just mailed. Since the petition was filed more than 25 days after the arbitrator's decision, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictionalAdministrative ArbitratorService of DecisionMailing
References
3
Case No. ADJ4213823 (AHM 01440-4)
Regular
Jun 02, 2010

RODOLFO PLASCENCIA (Deceased), TERESA PLASCENCIA (Widow) vs. LOS ANGELES DODGERS, ACE USA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior award, ruling that applicant Rodolfo Plascencia's neck injury sustained from a fall was not compensable. The Board found that the applicant's blood alcohol level of .187% was a material and substantial cause of his fall, thus barring compensation under Labor Code section 3600(a)(4). The majority credited expert testimony indicating the intoxication impaired judgment and physical ability, making it the probable cause of the fall in the absence of other evidence. A dissenting opinion argued the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof and that reasonable doubt should favor the employee, citing lack of evidence for intoxication being the sole cause and the possibility of other fall factors.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(4)intoxication defensematerial and substantial factorblood alcohol level.187%addiction substance abuse expertwaiver of objectioncommon knowledgeslip and fallreasonable inferences
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2016

Schnapp v. Miller's Launch, Inc.

In this dissenting opinion, the plaintiff, a surveyor for Weeks Marine, was injured while attempting to board a chartered boat by jumping from a four-foot bulkhead instead of utilizing available safety equipment. The negligence claim falls under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, focusing on the defendant's 'turnover duty' and 'duty to intervene.' While the majority reversed summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the dissenting judge argues that the hazard was open and obvious, and the plaintiff had alternative safe boarding methods, thereby absolving the defendant of its turnover duty. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that the boat's captain lacked actual knowledge of the plaintiff's unsafe boarding method, thus no duty to intervene was breached. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the order granting summary judgment to the defendant should have been affirmed.

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActTurnover dutyDuty to interveneShipowner negligenceOpen and obvious hazardSummary judgmentDissenting opinionVessel safetyDocking proceduresPersonal injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1987

Lunde v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc.

In this personal injury action, the plaintiff, an employee of Nichols Yacht Yard Inc., suffered a hand injury while attempting to fix a malfunctioning boat lift. The defendant, also located on the premises, had employees instruct the plaintiff, who was not part of the trained 'yard crew,' to launch a boat using a 'big lift' when no trained personnel were available. The lift malfunctioned due to a displaced cable, and as the plaintiff attempted to correct it per defendant's instructions, his hand was pulled into a pulley. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, found the defendant 95% at fault, based on a jury verdict. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the defendant, as an owner or general contractor, owed a duty to provide a safe workplace under Labor Law §200, and that the jury's finding was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySafe Workplace DutyLabor Law §200Jury VerdictAppellate ReviewComparative NegligenceBoat Lift AccidentEmployer LiabilityExpert Witness Testimony
References
15
Case No. 01 Civ. 2254
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2004

Roane v. Greenwich Swim Committee

This tort action stems from injuries sustained by Stephen Roane during a one-mile swim event in Long Island Sound and a subsequent rescue attempt. Plaintiffs, Stephen and Margot Roane, sued the event organizer Greenwich Swim Committee (GSC), boat owner Walter McDermott, and boat manufacturer S2 Yachts, Inc. The court applied general maritime law. It granted S2's motions to preclude plaintiffs' expert witness and for summary judgment, finding the expert's methodology unreliable regarding design defects. However, the court denied GSC and McDermott's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike their affirmative defenses of waiver and assumption of risk, deeming the waiver unenforceable and assumption of risk inapplicable in admiralty law. The case will proceed to trial against GSC and McDermott.

Maritime LawAdmiralty JurisdictionSummary JudgmentExpert Witness TestimonyDaubert StandardRule 702NegligenceProduct LiabilityWaiver of LiabilityAssumption of Risk
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Martin R. Kennedy was injured while working on a barge chartered by his employer, American Bridge Company, from Week’s Marine, Inc. Kennedy fell from a wooden plank serving as the barge's gangway, which was supplied by American Bridge. He brought suit pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), but Magistrate Judge David F. Jordan granted summary judgment for Week’s Marine, concluding they had no duty to provide a safe gangway under a bare boat charter. Kennedy appealed this judgment, arguing Week's Marine had knowledge of workers on the barge. The District Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Week's Marine, having relinquished control of the vessel in a bare boat charter, was not responsible for conditions arising after the charter or for providing a gangway, as the charterer, American Bridge, became the owner pro hac vice and bore that duty.

Bare Boat CharterMaritime LawSummary JudgmentLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActVessel Owner LiabilityCharterer LiabilityGangway SafetyDuty of CareOwner Pro Hac ViceAppellate Review
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 36 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