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. 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
Case No. ADJ9427877
Regular
Apr 20, 2020

KARL KURTZ vs. WESCO AIRCRAFT HARDWARE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an employer's termination of an employee while he was on temporary disability due to a back injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that the termination violated Labor Code section 132a, finding the employer's stated reasons of relocation and claim denial constituted unlawful discrimination. While the employee is entitled to lost wage reimbursement from June 1, 2016, to October 9, 2018, issues regarding reinstatement and further wage loss remain deferred for further proceedings. The Board also affirmed the finding that the employee's injury was not due to his own serious and willful misconduct.

Labor Code Section 132aserious and willful misconductdiscriminationretaliationreinstatementlost wagestemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityserious and willful misconduct of employeeserious and willful misconduct of employer
References
Case No. Misc. No. 254
En Banc
Sep 21, 2011

vs. Daniel Escamilla

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a Notice of Hearing to consider suspending or removing Daniel Escamilla's privilege to appear as a representative, citing a history of sanctions for bad-faith actions, frivolous tactics, and causing unnecessary delays.

Labor Code Section 4907Privilege SuspensionRepresentative MisconductBad Faith ActionsFrivolous PleadingsMisrepresentations of FactAppeals Board RulesState Bar RulesWCJ SanctionsHearing Representative
References
Case No. SAC 280551
Regular
Jul 10, 2007

JANET STROTH vs. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

This case concerns an applicant teacher who sustained an industrial injury from a violent student. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board initially awarded increased compensation for serious and willful misconduct by the employer, finding the employer knew of the student's violent propensities. However, the Court of Appeal annulled this award, holding that while the employer knew of the danger, there was insufficient evidence of a deliberate failure to act for the applicant's safety. Consequently, the Appeals Board has rescinded its prior decision and denied the serious and willful misconduct claim, returning the matter for further proceedings.

Serious and willful misconductRemittiturCourt of AppealEmployer's knowledgeDangerous conditionDeliberate failure to actTeacher injuryStudent misconductSchool bus incidentCompromise and release
References
Case No. ADJ984330 (MON 0320747)
Regular
Jan 26, 2015

CHRIS JENSEN vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant, a police officer, seeking reconsideration of a denial for increased benefits due to alleged serious and willful misconduct by the California Highway Patrol. The applicant claimed unsafe working conditions at a vehicle inspection facility led to his psychological injury (PTSD). However, the Board denied reconsideration, finding no evidence that the alleged misconduct at the facility proximately caused his PTSD, which medical evidence indicated predated his time there. Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove that employer representatives with sufficient authority knew of the specific dangerous conditions and deliberately failed to act.

Serious and willful misconductPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative traumaPsyche injuryPTSDCalifornia Highway PatrolPolice officerQualified Medical ExaminerSafety inspectionsHazardous work environment
References
Case No. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Dec 16, 2015

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of its intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days due to a pattern of misconduct, frivolous tactics, and failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionAppeals Board en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentWCJDiscovery abuse
References
Case No. Misc. No. 257
Significant

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days, citing a pattern of bad-faith tactics, frivolous actions, and repeated failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionWCAB en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsUnnecessary delayLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentRepeated misconduct
References
Case No. ADJ7300708
Regular
Mar 30, 2015

ALEJANDRO VALENCIA MAGANA (Deceased) BEATRIZ VALENCIA (Widow) vs. HALOPOFF \u0026 SONS, INC., SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.

The applicant sought to join John Halopoff, Sr. as a defendant in a serious and willful misconduct claim filed after the statute of limitations had expired. The Appeals Board granted Halopoff's petition for removal, rescinding the order to join him as a party. This decision was based on the principle that a new defendant cannot be added after the statute of limitations has run, absent specific exceptions like ignorance of identity or misleading conduct. Because the applicant was aware of Halopoff's identity and there was no evidence of misrepresentation, the joinder was deemed untimely.

Serious and Willful MisconductPetition for RemovalOrder of JoinderStatute of LimitationsSuccessor LiabilityDeath CaseIndustrial InjuryEmployer MisconductLabor Code Section 5407Doe Defendant
References
Case No. ADJ2628913
Regular
Jan 02, 2014

BARRY BLAYLOCK vs. NEGHEBORN AUTO CENTER, dba NEBHEBORN LINCOLN MERCURY, et al

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a finding of serious and willful misconduct. The applicant sustained a permanent and total disability due to lung damage caused by heavy workplace smoking, specifically by a coworker in an enclosed office. Despite repeated complaints and an emergency room visit, the employer knowingly permitted the violation of a workplace smoking prohibition. The Board found sufficient evidence of employer knowledge of the safety order and the resulting harm to the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code Section 4553Reconsideration DeniedPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportCredibility FindingSerious and WillfulViolation of Safety OrderWorkplace Smoking Prohibition
References
Case No. ADJ3495329 (SFO 0461473)
Regular
Dec 24, 2010

PAUL HUNT vs. BIGGE CRANE & RIGGING

This case concerns an applicant seeking additional compensation for an industrial injury based on the employer's alleged serious and willful misconduct. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initially found the employer liable, citing the misconduct of a crane operator and general foreman deemed "managing officers." However, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, finding neither individual constituted a managing officer whose actions could establish employer misconduct. Consequently, the WCAB has amended its prior award, denying the applicant's claim for serious and willful misconduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code section 4553Managing OfficersIndustrial InjuryCrane OperatorGeneral ForemanCourt of AppealPetition for Reconsideration
References
Showing 1-10 of 274 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