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. ADJ7345520
Regular
Sep 07, 2011

ANTONIO NAVARRO vs. CBS FASTENERS, INC., CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

This case involves applicant Antonio Navarro's petition for reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits. The administrative law judge found applicant was the initial aggressor in an altercation with a co-worker on December 4, 2008, rendering his injury non-compensable under Labor Code § 3600(a)(7). Applicant argued the defendant failed to prove initial aggressor status and that he reasonably felt threatened, but his petition misrepresented the record and contradicted his own trial testimony where he denied initiating the physical contact. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report and finding overwhelming evidence, including witness testimony and a police report, that applicant was the initial aggressor.

initial aggressoraltercationsLab. Code § 3600(a)(7)Mathews v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.credibility determinationwitness testimonypolice reportWCJ credibilityPetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ11795460
Regular
Oct 17, 2019

GABRIEL MORA vs. SB ENTERTAINMENT VENTURES INC. dba 340 RESTAURANT AND NIGHTCLUB, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant alleges injury during an altercation at work. The employer, SB Entertainment Ventures Inc., denied the claim, asserting the applicant was the initial aggressor. The applicant sought a video of the incident, which the employer failed to produce despite a subpoena and court order. The WCJ issued a finding that the video showed the applicant was not the initial aggressor, implying the employer's non-production led to this conclusion. The Appeals Board treated the employer's petition as a request for reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's finding, and remanded the case. This action was taken because the prior hearing lacked sufficient admitted evidence to support the finding, and due process requires a proper evidentiary record before determining such a threshold issue as initial aggressor status.

WCABRemoval PetitionReconsiderationInitial AggressorDue ProcessSubpoena Duces TecumAdverse InferenceWillful SuppressionBad Faith ActionsSanctions
References
Case No. ADJ8633613
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

BYRON MATTAS vs. SHOKER TRADING CORPORATION dba TRIPLE S. CHEVRON, HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the applicant sustained injuries during an altercation with a customer. The defendant argued the claim was barred by specific Labor Code sections, including being the initial physical aggressor. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for removal and denied reconsideration, upholding the judge's finding that the applicant was not the initial aggressor, based largely on surveillance video. A dissenting commissioner argued that the applicant was indeed the initial physical aggressor by throwing soup, thus barring the claim.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardByron MattasShoker Trading CorporationTriple S. ChevronHanover Insurance CompanyADJ8633613Findings and Orderindustrial injuryheadneck
References
Case No. ADJ10762593
Regular
Feb 06, 2023

NICHOLAS KOBE vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, AIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Los Angeles' petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that firefighter Nicholas Kobe's TMJ/myofascial pain injury was compensable. The Board adopted the judge's report, which determined that the applicant was not the initial physical aggressor in an altercation with a fellow firefighter, as the initial physical contact was initiated by the other firefighter. Therefore, Labor Code §3600(a)(7) did not bar the claim, and the applicant was awarded temporary and permanent disability benefits. The defense exclusively argued the initial physical aggressor defense, which the Board found inapplicable based on the facts.

Initial physical aggressor defenseLabor Code §3600(a)(7)TMJ/myofascial painPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorNina Nattiv DDSfirefighter injurytemporary disabilitypermanent disabilitywage calculationattorney fees
References
Case No. ADJ7806856
Regular
Aug 01, 2013

MICHAEL WEINBERG vs. SUTTON AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST PLEASANTON

This case involved an employee's claim for a psyche industrial injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of a prior ruling that denied the "initial physical aggressor" defense, arguing the applicant was the aggressor. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing that the applicant was not the initial physical aggressor because the co-worker physically pushed him first. The Board affirmed that the applicant's claim was not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(7), deferring other issues.

Initial physical aggressor defenseLabor Code section 3208.3Verga v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.AOE/COEweldersaltercationsphysical conductreasonable fear of bodily harmanimosityhostile words
References
Case No. ADJ9653109
Regular
Sep 06, 2016

William Morales vs. Bonsal American Oldcastle, Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The applicant sought review of a decision that denied his injury claim because he was the initial physical aggressor in a workplace altercation. The Board deferred to the administrative law judge's credibility findings, which found the applicant less credible than defense witnesses and a video recording that was inconclusive. Therefore, the Board affirmed the original finding that the applicant was the initial physical aggressor and is barred from compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderInitial Physical AggressorLabor Code Section 3600(a)(7)Credibility DeterminationsVideo FootageOccupational InjuryMachine OperatorPhysical Altercation
References
Case No. ADJ2272286 (LAO 0873209)
Regular
Jul 19, 2010

ENRIQUE CASTRO-AGUILAR vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES, BROADSPIRE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine if applicant's injuries were barred by the initial aggressor defense. The applicant, a security officer, was injured while using pepper spray and restraining a suspected shoplifter who was threatening him with a rock. The Board found that the applicant's actions, though potentially unauthorized in manner, were a good-faith attempt to prevent theft and did not constitute willful wrongdoing. Therefore, he was not the initial aggressor, and his claim for benefits is not barred.

initial aggressor defenseunauthorized mannerscope of employmentcourse of employmentaffirmative defensewillful wrongdoingintentional misconductreal present and apparent threat of bodily harmgood faith attemptprevent theft
References
Case No. ADJ8266758
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

CAROLINA HERNANDEZ vs. SUPER GROCERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for PATRIOT RISK/ULLICO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's award to applicant Carolina Hernandez. Defendant CIGA contended the WCJ erred in finding an industrial injury, asserting applicant was the initial aggressor in an altercation and that the injury was not reported until after her termination notice. The Board determined that video evidence, Exhibit E, is crucial to resolving the initial aggressor issue and ordered defendant to provide it. Reconsideration was granted to review this evidence and ensure a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationUllicoSuperior GrocersPetition for ReconsiderationInitial Physical AggressorIndustrial InjuryTerminationExhibit EWCJ Report
References
Case No. ADJ8745178
Regular
Jan 23, 2014

KHIN LAY vs. SWEDA COMPANY LLC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Khin Lay's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ), emphasizing the significant weight given to the WCJ's credibility determination. The applicant, Khin Lay, sought reconsideration after his claim was denied, likely based on findings that he was the initial aggressor in a workplace altercation. The WCJ's report, which the Board incorporated, detailed conflicting testimony regarding the altercation but ultimately found the applicant's actions met the standard for the initial aggressor defense, leading to the denial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeInitial Aggressor DefenseCredibility FindingPhysical AltercationEyewitness TestimonyCourse and Scope of EmploymentAggressivenessReasonable Man Standard
References
Case No. ADJ19073561
Regular
Mar 17, 2025

JAZMIN LUCERO vs. LIVING SPACES FURNITURE, LLC; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Jazmin Lucero sustained an industrial injury while working as a truck driver for Living Spaces Furniture, LLC. Defendant Zenith Insurance Company denied the claim, citing the initial aggressor defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(7). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the prior Findings and Award, and substituted it with new findings. The Board ultimately determined that the applicant's claim was not barred by the initial aggressor defense and that she sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her cervical and lumbar spine.

initial aggressor defenseLabor Code § 3600(a)(7)arising out of and in the course of employmentAOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationFindings and Awardrescindedsubstitutedcervical spine
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,223 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