ADJ11034618 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied

Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant and denied by the Board

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedhead

Applicant was performing his job duties on the employer's premises when injured; the injury was found to be within the course of employment despite unauthorized manner of performance; the Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and medical opinions supporting causation.

From the decision · page 6Applicant was employed as a security officer/guard by All Nation Security Services, Inc. on August 24, 2017. The matter went to trial on the issue of injury arising out of and in the course employment involving the head after a fall. Defendant contended there was conduct outside the course of employment and/or material deviation. The Findings issued proving that Applicant sustained an industrial injury to the head and Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.

QMERelied upon · neurology

Diagnosed traumatic brain injury with intracranial hemorrhage and post-concussive syndrome causally related to the work injury; opined injury caused by a blow to the head and/or fall; reviewed security videos supporting injury mechanism.

Dr. Anderson's medical opinions were relied upon to establish causation and injury arising out of employment.

From the decision · page 6In his QME report dated September 4, 2018, neurologist Dr. Wayne Anderson provided a history of the injury. Applicant was working as a security guard when a homeless person came inside the lobby of the Greyhound bus station. The homeless person was dancing and speaking badly in the lobby. An employee asked Applicant to escort the homeless person outside. Applicant asked whether the homeless person had a ticket and asked him to leave. The homeless person did not leave and cursed at Applicant and hit Applicant in the left temple with a fist. Applicant fell outside

otherPartially credited · biomechanics

Analyzed video footage and concluded injury consistent with head impact to ground, not a punch to the head.

Her report was considered in evaluating the injury mechanism but medical causation was credited to Dr. Anderson.

From the decision · page 7Defendant offered an Injury Biomechanics Report by biomechanical engineer Stephanie Bonin, PhD dated September 20, 2019. Dr. Bonin reviewed and analyzed video footage and concluded that Applicant's injury of subdural hematoma and brain contusion are consistent with a head impact to the ground and not a punch to the head. (Exhibit I) Dr. Anderson produced a supplemental report dated February 18, 2020 based on review of security videos. Dr. Anderson described the first video as showing Applicant walking, another person speaks with him, the other person begins dancing, Applicant returns, words are exchanged, a customer comes between them, the other person swings at Applicant, and it is unclear if Applicant is struck. Dr. Anderson described the second video as showing Applicant chase after the other person and then trip on the sidewalk, Applicant attempts to rise when the other person returns and strikes Applicant causing Applicant to fall backwards striking his head. Dr. Anderson opines that the video shows Applicant fall and land on the left outside the station, and then Applicant being struck in the head, and then Applicant falling backward and striking his head. Dr. Anderson opines that the injury appears to have occurred outside. (Exhibit L)

ADJ11034618 · May 20, 2021

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page