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. ADJ4189144
Regular
Jul 10, 2013

Carlos Alberto Recinos vs. Monarch Litho, Inc., State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that denied the applicant's claim for serious and willful misconduct. The WCAB found that the prior decision was not based on substantial evidence, particularly concerning the expert testimony regarding the cause of the applicant's severe injury. Because the original judge retired and crucial evidence was flawed, the WCAB rescinded the prior order. The case is now returned to the Presiding Judge to be assigned to a new judge for further proceedings and a new decision.

Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code section 6400Pallet JackSerious and WillfulReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJAdjudicationRebuttal TestimonyAccident Reconstructionist
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. 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
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. ADJ6482213
Regular
Mar 30, 2012

Fernando Cuyugan vs. Bax Global, Inc., American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed two orders, one awarding deposition costs and another imposing sanctions against defense counsel. The Board found that the cost award was improper because the applicant did not prevail on their serious and willful misconduct claim, which has a specific cost limitation under Labor Code section 4553. Additionally, the sanctions order was rescinded because the stated grounds of "unreasonable willful delay" did not meet the statutory requirement of "bad-faith actions or tactics" for imposing sanctions. Finally, the Board dismissed the employer's petition for removal concerning the sanctions order as it was a final order subject to reconsideration.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4453Labor Code section 5811Costs and expensesReconsiderationRemovalSanctionsDue processEx parteUnreasonable willful delay
References
Case No. ADJ1421850 (FRE0216376)
Regular
Aug 17, 2009

BILL CUSTER vs. SARA LEE BAKERY GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a finding of serious and willful misconduct by the employer, Sara Lee Bakery Group. The applicant sustained a knee and groin injury due to a broken bread tray, and the initial finding of misconduct was based on testimony about past practices. However, the Board found no evidence that the employer's executive or managing officers knew serious injury was probable or acted with reckless disregard for consequences. Consequently, the prior award finding serious and willful misconduct was rescinded, and a new decision was issued stating the injury was not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code § 4553Findings and AwardReconsiderationRescindedApplicantDefendantRoute SalesmanIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ3891195 (LBO 0394271)
Regular
Jul 26, 2010

Carlos Melara vs. GARDA USA, aka GARDA CL WEST, INC.; ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a previous award. The Board found that while the applicant sustained an industrial injury, it did not result from the employer's serious and willful misconduct. The Board determined that the employer's actions, including conducting safety meetings and having policies against firearm misuse, did not demonstrate the "positive and active disregard of the consequences" required for serious and willful misconduct. Therefore, the 50% increase in benefits for serious and willful misconduct was overturned.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code Section 4553Industrial InjuryBilateral Lower ExtremitiesPsycheGarda USAESISCoin CounterArmored Trucks
References
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
Showing 1-10 of 864 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