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. ADJ6884625
Regular
Jun 19, 2012

JASON PETERSON, KIRSTIE MCCRAINE-PETERSON vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the death of Jason Peterson, a correctional officer, from a pulmonary embolism after injuring his calf in a kickboxing class. The applicant, his widow, claimed the injury and death were work-related, arguing the kickboxing class was a reasonable expectancy of employment due to a general fitness requirement and incentive program. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the claim barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9) because the decedent's belief that kickboxing was required was not objectively reasonable, as mere general assertions of fitness expectations are insufficient. Commissioner Brass dissented, believing the decedent's participation was both subjectively and objectively reasonable given its likely benefit to his job performance as a correctional officer.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9)Pulmonary EmbolismCorrectional OfficerKickboxingOff-duty Recreational ActivityReasonable Expectancy of EmploymentSubjective BeliefObjective ReasonablenessEzzy testCity of Stockton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Jenneiahn)
References
2
Case No. ADJ8334555
Regular
Apr 05, 2013

JOSE HERNANDEZ vs. BRYAN MIMAKI dba PACIFIC RIMS, PALMS; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether a knee injury sustained by an employee, Jose Hernandez, while playing basketball on company premises during lunch is compensable. The defendant argued the injury did not arise out of employment, as it stemmed from voluntary participation in an athletic activity not required by the employer. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that the injury was industrial. The majority found the employee's subjective belief of employer expectation was objectively reasonable, given the employer provided a court and balls and supervisors encouraged participation. Commissioner Lowe dissented, arguing the applicant failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable belief of employer expectation, as he could opt out and faced no repercussions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryRight KneeField WorkerBasketball GameOff-Duty Recreational ActivityLabor Code Section 3600(a)(9)Reasonable Expectancy of EmploymentSubjective BeliefObjective Reasonableness
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Lexington Center

The claimant, injured in 1991 at age 20, was classified with a permanent partial disability and received a wage expectancy adjustment based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). In 2001, after back surgery, he became temporarily totally disabled. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified the initial decision, ruling that the future wage expectancy adjustment should not be applied during the period of temporary total disability. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, clarifying that the wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) applies equally to periods of temporary and permanent disability if the worker would reasonably have expected higher wages during that time, especially given the claimant's age of 31 during his temporary total disability. The court found the Board abused its discretion and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation of the statute.

Wage ExpectancyPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityAverage Weekly WageStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionWorkers' Compensation Law § 14 (5)RemandBack Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romero v. Albany Medical Center Hospital

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a claimant's wage expectancy calculation. The employer challenged the Board's consideration of the claimant's potential earnings as a physician, rather than a part-time nursing aide, given her age and career aspirations. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the rule limiting wage expectancy to similar employment does not apply in atypical situations, especially when a claimant is actively pursuing a higher-earning career path like medicine, with their current job being secondary.

Wage ExpectancyFuture EarningsWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewCareer ProgressionAtypical EmploymentAverage Weekly WageMedical CareerPart-time WorkUnder 25 Claimant
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Maw v. Wal-Mart

The claimant, injured in 1999 as an 18-year-old sales associate, sought workers' compensation benefits with a focus on future wage expectancy as a professional dancer. Initially, her average weekly wage was set at $226.38, but a WCLJ later adjusted it to $800 after classifying her with a permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board modified this to $450, based on potential earnings as a dance instructor, arguing that her pursuit of a professional dancing career was too speculative at the time of injury. The Board also limited the application of this adjustment to awards made from the date of permanency, February 12, 2007. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support both the wage expectancy rate determination and the effective date of the adjustment.

Wage expectancyPermanent partial disabilityAverage weekly wageProfessional dancing careerDance instructor earningsSpeculative employmentAppellate reviewTemporary employmentFuture earnings potentialDate of permanency
References
7
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 30531(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Schirmer v. Athena-Liberty Lofts, LP

This case is an appeal from an Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury action. The plaintiff, a worker at a construction site, sustained injuries, leading to the site owner, Lofts, settling the claim after being found liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Lofts then pursued indemnity claims against lighting contractor HP and the plaintiff's employer, Burgess. The Appellate Court modified the lower court's decision, vacating the finding that Lofts' settlement amount was reasonable due to Lofts' failure to properly demonstrate reasonableness and its mischaracterization of waiver arguments by HP and Burgess. The Court also affirmed the denial of HP's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual issues concerning inadequate lighting as a cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionThird-Party ActionSettlement ReasonablenessCross ClaimsInadequate Lighting
References
4
Case No. ADJ4225434 (LAO0864755)
Regular
Dec 10, 2008

CHING YEN vs. C & C INTERNATIONAL GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant injured in a car accident while traveling to a wedding with her employer. The applicant claimed her participation in the trip was a reasonable expectancy of her employment as an account assistant, which involved driving and travel. The Board denied reconsideration of the workers' compensation judge's finding that the injury was industrial, determining the applicant's subjective belief of being required to attend the trip was objectively reasonable given her job duties and her employer's direction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryReasonable ExpectancyOff-duty recreational activitySubjective beliefObjectively reasonableMotor vehicle accidentAccount assistantCommercial travelSpecial mission
References
3
Case No. ADJ1543782
Regular
Aug 18, 2009

Richard E. Knudsen vs. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

In this workers' compensation case, the Board denied the defendant City of Beverly Hills' reconsideration of its prior decision. The Board had overturned a judge's finding that a police officer's shoulder injury sustained while exercising in the station gym during off-duty hours was not industrial. The Board determined the injury was compensable because it was a reasonable expectancy of employment under the specific circumstances. This decision reinforces the finding that the officer's workout was a reasonable part of his employment, even during off-duty hours.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Beverly Hillspolice officerleft shoulder injuryindustrial injuryreasonable expectancyoff-duty hoursgymcompensablereconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ9876999, ADJ9876980
Regular
Jul 20, 2016

ROLANDO RENTERIA vs. CITY OF DOWNEY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Downey's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld the finding that police officer Rolando Renteria sustained a compensable injury to his right thumb while weightlifting at home. This was because the WCJ found the off-duty exercise to be a reasonable expectancy of employment, citing Renteria's role as a breacher on the entry team and participation in strength-based training and fitness tests. The Board deferred to the WCJ's credibility findings regarding Renteria's belief that his employer expected such fitness maintenance.

Rolando RenteriaCity of DowneyADJ9876999ADJ9876980Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAOE/COEright thumb injuryoff-duty weightliftingLabor Code section 3600(a)(9)
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,410 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