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. ADJ8739181
Regular
Sep 19, 2018

JOHN JOAQUIN (deceased), JENNIFER JOAQUIN, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for ANNAMARIE JOAQUIN, MAKAHLAH LYNN JOAQUIN, IZABEL TRINITY JOAQUIN vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured, administered by YORK

This case concerns a deceased worker's family seeking increased compensation due to alleged serious and willful misconduct by the employer, San Diego Unified School District. The WCAB affirmed the judge's finding that the employer did not engage in serious and willful misconduct, as the employer's actions were deemed a mistake in judgment rather than intentional disregard of danger. The Board also upheld the exclusion of evidence regarding a subsequent remedial measure taken by the employer. A dissenting opinion argued that the employer's decision to send the employee to a dangerous roadside repair location demonstrated reckless disregard for safety, warranting a finding of serious and willful misconduct.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Mercer-Fraser Co.subsequent remedial measureEvidence Code section 1151roadside repairdangerous conditionreckless disregardJohns-Manville Sales Corp.Hawaiian Pineapple Co.
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
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
3
Case No. SAC 0269325
Regular
Jan 09, 2008

Jason Tillery, Aaron Tillery vs. CRANSTON STEEL STRUCTURES, LABOR READY, REGION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves the deceased worker Stephen Tillery's heirs, Jason and Aaron Tillery, seeking reconsideration of a decision denying them increased compensation due to the employer's serious and willful misconduct. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning the prior ruling that non-dependent heirs could not recover such benefits, and awarded the heirs $204,366.08 plus costs, less a 30% attorney's fee. The Board clarified that accrued and unpaid compensation, including increased benefits for serious and willful misconduct, passes to the deceased employee's heirs under Labor Code sections 4700 and 4702.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductNon-dependent heirsIncreased compensationPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4700Labor Code section 4702Death benefitsAccrued and unpaid compensationAttorney's fee
References
4
Case No. 2014-03-0006
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2015

Scarbrough, Jeffrey v. Right Way Recycling, LLC

This case involves an interlocutory appeal where employee Jeffrey Scarbrough sustained injuries after falling from an excavator at Right Way Recycling, LLC. The employer denied the claim, citing the injury did not primarily arise out of employment and willful misconduct. The trial court ruled for the employee, ordering medical benefits and temporary disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed this decision, finding sufficient evidence that the employee would likely prevail on compensability and that the employer failed to prove willful misconduct. The Board concluded that the employee's actions were within the scope of employment and found no established safety rule or bona fide enforcement to support the willful misconduct defense. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Interlocutory AppealWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardExcavator AccidentWillful Misconduct DefenseCourse and Scope of EmploymentTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Benefits OrderEmployer LiabilityEmployee Injury ClaimTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
7
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
0
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
11
Case No. ADJ1245747 (BAK 0140714)
Regular
Jul 14, 2009

BALDEMAR SANCHEZ vs. KINLEY CONSTRUCTION, AIG COSTA MESA

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct, thus denying additional benefits under Labor Code § 4553. The applicant had previously settled his industrial injury claim for $60,000, but the settlement explicitly excluded the serious and willful misconduct claim. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the employer's conduct, while negligent, did not rise to the level of serious and willful misconduct. The Board also noted the applicant's petition violated procedural rules regarding spacing, cautioning counsel for future compliance.

Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code § 4553Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact & AwardCompromise & ReleaseIndustrial InjuryPelvis InjuryHip InjuryAbdomen InjuryBilateral Knees Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nicoletta v. Hartnett

Petitioner, a contractor operating as Nicoletta Building Contractors, entered into a contract with the Village of Seneca Falls in September 1985 for construction work. In August 1986, an investigation by the Department of Labor revealed that petitioner had underpaid seven employees, violating prevailing wage and supplement requirements under Labor Law § 220. After an administrative hearing, the Hearing Officer's recommendation of willful violation, a 10% interest assessment, and a $1,175 civil penalty was adopted by the respondent. Petitioner challenged this determination regarding three employees, but the court confirmed the respondent's findings, citing substantial evidence and upholding the willfulness of the violation and the imposed penalties. The petition was dismissed.

Underpayment of wagesPrevailing wageLabor Law violationsWillful violationCivil penaltyAdministrative hearingJudicial reviewArticle 78Employer liabilityEmployee rights
References
3
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08300 [145 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2016

Netzahuall v. All Will LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding the denial of defendant Lime Light's cross-motion to dismiss common-law indemnification claims brought by defendant All Will LLC. The plaintiff, Gabriel Netzahuall, an employee of Lime Light, sustained injuries but not a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Although the Workers' Compensation Board previously determined Lime Light to be the plaintiff's employer, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's finding that All Will, the premises owner, was not collaterally estopped from challenging this determination. The court reasoned that All Will was not a party to the prior Workers' Compensation proceeding and therefore did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of plaintiff's employer.

indemnificationcollateral estoppelWorkers' Compensation Lawemployer-employee relationshipgrave injurypremises liabilityappellate practicestatutory interpretationprivity of partieslitigation opportunity
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 10,674 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