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. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ15544152
Regular
May 02, 2025

TALIBAH COFFEE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK

Applicant, Talibah Coffee, sought reconsideration of a finding that her claimed industrial injury was non-compensable due to her being the initial physical aggressor in an altercation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the applicant's petition, the defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report. The Board concurred with the WCJ's analysis, which found that the applicant's act of physically touching and moving a cameraman's equipment constituted the initial physical aggression, thereby barring compensation under Labor Code section 3600(a)(7). Consequently, the Petition for Reconsideration was denied.

Initial physical aggressorLabor Code section 3600(a)(7)Deputy Probation Officer IIaltercationphysical conductreal and present threat of bodily harmPetition for ReconsiderationWCJReport and Recommendationinjury AOE/COE
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. 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
Case No. ADJ8361146
Regular
May 09, 2013

JULIAN YAC vs. NIETOS BROTHER ORPORATION, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration in the case of Julian Yac. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant was the initial physical aggressor in an altercation with a customer, barring his claim. This determination was based on witness credibility and evidence of the applicant's confrontational actions, despite not causing immediate physical harm. The WCJ's credibility findings were given great weight, as per established case law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration deniedInitial physical aggressorLabor Code Section 3600(a)(7)Credibility findingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.AltercationExcessive forceThreat of bodily harmCriener v. WCAB
References
Case No. ADJ4513629 (SAL 0120784)
Regular
Feb 18, 2010

RICHARD GALINDO vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.; BROADSPIRE, a CRAWFORD COMPANY

This case concerns a bus driver who sustained a back injury after an altercation with a passenger. The employer denied the claim, asserting the employee was the initial physical aggressor, which would bar compensation. The Board reviewed videotape evidence and affirmed the WCJ's finding that the passenger's spitting and verbal threats constituted the initial physical aggression. Therefore, the employer failed to establish the exclusion under Labor Code section 3600(a)(7), and the injury is compensable.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONINDUSTRIAL INJURYBUS DRIVERCOMPENSABILITYINITIAL PHYSICAL AGGRESSORLABOR CODE SECTION 3600(a)(7)ALTERCATIONVIDEOTAPE EVIDENCETHREAT OF BODILY HARM
References
Case No. ADJ10738865, ADJ13719149
Regular
Feb 16, 2023

MICHAEL GARCIA vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Michael Garcia's petition for removal challenging a WCJ's order to set trial for defendant Southern California Edison to present witness Carol Wood. Garcia argued the witness was not disclosed prior to the initial trial and that Labor Code section 5502(d)(3) barred her testimony. The Board found no irreparable harm or substantial prejudice, noting the order complied with prior WCAB instructions to further develop the record on Garcia's discrimination claim and Edison's business necessity defense. This action allows Edison to present its defense, which the Board previously indicated needed to be fully explored.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for RemovalWCABWCJsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmbusiness necessities defensedisclosure of witnessesMSCstipulation
References
Case No. ADJ10961161
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

ROSA UHES vs. FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA PRESENTS LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Rosa Uhles's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order, as the WCJ's decision to take the matter off calendar was procedural. The WCAB also denied Uhles's petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would warrant this extraordinary remedy. Removal was denied because reconsideration remains an adequate remedy should an adverse final decision ultimately be issued. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition for removal were dismissed and denied, respectively.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ4704159 (AHM 0120563) ADJ2217428 (AHM 0106492) ADJ2380068 (AHM 0102888)
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

ROSALIE SEE vs. REMAX REAL ESTATE, BENEFICIAL SERVICES; EMPLOYERS COMP GLENDALE

The applicant sought to remove a WCJ's order compelling a medical evaluation. Applicant argued a prior agreed medical evaluation with a defendant-approved evaluator should suffice, preventing a second evaluation. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and reconsideration will be adequate if necessary.

Petition for RemovalJoint Order Compelling AttendanceMedical EvaluationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Highland Insurance CompanyExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ8935903
Regular
Sep 10, 2025

Jon Amedee vs. Pacific Bell Telephone Co., Sedgwick CMS

The Appeals Board considered the Petition for Removal and the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) report. It determined that removal is an extraordinary remedy and found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if denied, as parties could present their case at trial. Consequently, the Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyAdjudication NumberWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgePacific Bell Telephone Co.
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,708 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