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. ADJ18298511, ADJ16041068, ADJ16041077
Regular
Apr 29, 2025

ERNEST WINSLOW vs. CITY OF ALAMEDA, PSI, administered by LWP CLAIMS SOLUTIONS

Ernest Winslow, an employee of the City of Alameda, sustained injuries on September 1, 2023, while pursuing and attempting to block a stolen city truck. The City of Alameda denied his workers' compensation claim, arguing his actions were an unauthorized departure from employment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that Winslow's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The WCAB concluded that Winslow's actions, while potentially reckless, were an unauthorized manner of performing his duties to protect employer property, not an abandonment of his employment.

AOE/COECourse of EmploymentUnauthorized DepartureValenzuela v. WCABWestbrooks v. WCABWilliams v. WCABLabor Code Section 5909Petition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
12
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
8
Case No. ADJ8831581
Regular
Oct 07, 2013

DARLEEN DE LUNA vs. BUFFALO WILD WINGS, INC.; THE HARTFORD, Adjusted By SEDGWICK CLAIM MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involved an applicant injured while taking out trash. The defendant employer sought reconsideration of an award finding the injury industrial, arguing the applicant was engaged in horseplay and misrepresented facts. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's injury was industrial. The Board deferred to the judge's credibility assessment, finding the applicant credible and the witness alleging horseplay not so. Even if the applicant rode the cart, it was considered performance of authorized work in an unauthorized manner, not disqualifying horseplay.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardExpediterHorseplayWitness credibilityMaterial fact misrepresentationTrash cartCurb-cut
References
10
Case No. ADJ271398 (SFO 0505138)
Regular
Jun 09, 2009

Fernando Martinez vs. D.H. SMITH COMPANY, INC., ICW GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration and rescinded the original denial of benefits. The Board found that the applicant's injuries sustained in a vehicle collision arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment, despite his unlicensed driving contrary to employer instructions. The Court held that performing an authorized activity in an unauthorized manner does not remove the injury from the course of employment when the employer provides transportation to a job site. The Board denied the defendant's petition, affirming that the "going and coming rule" did not bar compensation in this instance.

going and coming rulescope of employmentcourse of employmentarising out of employmentemployer provided transportationunauthorized mannermaterial deviationpublic highwayincreased riskLabor Code section 3600
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 1985

Collier v. Simmonds Precision, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding a carrier's failure to pay compensation at an awarded rate and its unauthorized recoupment of alleged overpayments. The carrier had deducted amounts from weekly payments without explicit Board direction, leading to a penalty imposed by the Board, reversing an initial finding by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge. The carrier argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 22 required specific Board rules or orders for recoupment. However, the court affirmed the Board's exclusive jurisdiction to direct the method and manner of recoupment, citing prior cases like Matter of Dovi v Grand Union Co. and Matter of Bales v Post Serv. Sta. The decision of the Board imposing the penalty was upheld.

Workers' CompensationPenalty ImpositionOverpayment RecoupmentBoard JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDisability BenefitsCarrier ObligationsIndustrial AccidentExclusive Jurisdiction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. Benton & Bowles, Inc.

The plaintiff, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, AFL-CIO (AFTRA), initiated this action to vacate and modify a portion of an arbitration award against Benton & Bowles, Inc. (B&B). The dispute centered on performer compensation for rebroadcasts of the 'Texas' soap opera on a hybrid free TV/basic cable system, a scenario not explicitly covered by their collective bargaining agreement (TV Code), and B&B's unauthorized editing of the program. The arbitration panel found B&B violated the TV Code by editing without AFTRA's consent and fashioned a compensation remedy. The District Court affirmed the arbitrators' compensation award, finding it a plausible solution to an unforeseen contractual gap. However, the court vacated the part of the award that implicitly permitted continued unauthorized editing, ruling that this exceeded the arbitrators' contractual authority, and remanded the case for modification to enjoin B&B from further unauthorized editing.

Labor disputeArbitration awardCollective bargaining agreementTV CodeRebroadcast feesEditing rightsArbitrator authorityJudicial reviewContract interpretationSummary judgment
References
6
Case No. ADJ4634941
Regular
Jan 13, 2011

BERONICA NUNEZ vs. TELCO FOOD PRODUCTS, CNA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision. The judge had previously denied the lien in its entirety, finding that treatment provided outside the approved Medical Provider Network (MPN) was unauthorized. The Board affirmed this, holding that the applicant failed to follow MPN procedures for seeking further opinions before obtaining treatment outside the network. Therefore, the lien claimant was not entitled to payment for the unauthorized treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleasePanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Medical Provider Network (MPN)Unauthorized treatmentLabor Code section 4616.3(c)MPN second and third opinions
References
1
Case No. ANA 0378959
Regular
May 27, 2000

MAI HO vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse a restitution order against chiropractor Vu Phan, D.C., who provided unauthorized treatment. While Phan is not entitled to further payment for treatment not authorized by the employer, the Board found that the employer voluntarily paid $6,500 for past treatment and thus cannot recover it absent fraud, thus denying the employer's restitution claim. The Board otherwise affirmed the original decision denying Phan's lien claim for the unauthorized treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantRestitutionOverpaymentMedical treatmentUnauthorized treatmentPrimary treating physicianSelf-procured treatmentUnjust enrichmentVoluntary payment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 1993

Telesco v. Village of Port Chester

The petitioner, a sanitation worker employed by the Village of Port Chester, sought review of a determination by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Port Chester. The Board had confirmed a Hearing Officer's finding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct due to a conviction for attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance and unauthorized absences, leading to his employment termination. The court found that the criminal conviction constituted misconduct and that the determination regarding unauthorized absences was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the court concluded that the termination of employment was a proportionate penalty. Therefore, the determination of the Board was confirmed, and the proceeding was dismissed.

MisconductEmployment TerminationUnauthorized AbsencesCriminal ConvictionPublic EmployeeArticle 78 ProceedingJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawDue ProcessProportionality of Penalty
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vegliack v. Mazzella

Plaintiff sought to recover $700 from the defendants for home improvement work performed at their premises in New York City. The defendants denied the claim and counterclaimed for breach of contract, asserting that the plaintiff was not licensed as required by the Administrative Code for home improvement contracts and that the work was unauthorized. The court found that any work was conditioned upon a written agreement, which was never made, and thus the work was unauthorized. Crucially, the court determined that the plaintiff, as an unlicensed contractor, could not recover due to the protective nature of the licensing statute for homeowners. Furthermore, the defendants failed to prove damages for their counterclaim, leading to its denial.

Unlicensed ContractorHome Improvement ContractContract EnforceabilityAdministrative Code ViolationBreach of Contract CounterclaimLicensing StatuteConsumer ProtectionUnauthorized WorkOral Agreement ValidityNew York City Administrative Code
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 292 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