ADJ12214846 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Findings of Fact issued on 2020-09-08 affirmed

Petition for Reconsideration granted to further study factual and legal issues; WCJ Findings of Fact from 2020-09-08 affirmed after reconsideration

Read the official decision →

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 prevailedlegs · right arm

The WCJ found the injury industrial because the employer assisted the assailant in locating applicant and attempting to restrain applicant, which was sufficient to find injury AOE/COE. The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no substantial evidence to reject them. The facts distinguished this case from Transactron, where the employer did not assist the assailant. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings.

From the decision · page 1The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury occurred arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his legs and right arm on May 3, 2019, when applicant was beaten and shot by a third-party assailant at the workplace. In particular, the WCJ found the attack industrial because the employer assisted the assailant, who owned a neighboring farm, in locating applicant.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Lab. Code, 3600

Injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment (AOE/COE) per Lab. Code, 3600; burden on employee to prove by preponderance of evidence

The Board applied this standard to analyze whether the injury was compensable as arising out of and in the course of employment.

From the decision · page 2To be compensable, an injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment (AOE/COE). (Lab. Code, § 3600.) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark)

Lauher, supra, quoting Lamb, supra

Workmen's Compensation Act must be liberally construed in favor of employee; all reasonable doubts resolved in favor of employee

The Board applied this principle to resolve doubts in favor of applicant regarding compensability.

From the decision · page 3[I]ssues of compensation for injured workers "shall be liberally construed by the courts with the purpose of extending their benefits for the protection of persons injured in the course of their employment." Thus, "[a]lthough the employee bears the burden of proving that his injury was sustained in the course of his employment, the established legislative policy is that the Workmen's Compensation Act must be liberally construed in the employee's favor..., and all reasonable doubts as to whether an injury arose out of employment are to be resolved in favor of the employee...."

LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 644

Two-prong test for AOE/COE: injury must occur in course of employment (time, place, circumstances) and arise out of employment (by reason of condition or incident of employment)

The Board applied the two-prong test to determine compensability of injury.

From the decision · page 3requires a two-prong analysis. (LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 644 [72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 217, 951 P.2d 1184, 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 253].) First, the injury must occur "in the course of employment," which ordinarily "refers to the time, place, and circumstances under which the injury occurs." (LaTourette, supra, at 645.) Here, applicant was attacked while on the employer's premises and it is undisputed that he was injured in the course of her employment.

Cal. Lab. Code, 6401.7; 6401.9

Employers have duties to recognize hazards and take reasonable steps to prevent workplace violence per Cal. Lab. Code, 6401.7; 6401.9

The Board noted these employer duties to distinguish this case from Transactron and support finding of industrial injury.

From the decision · page 5Lastly, although the facts are clearly distinguished in this case, we observe that Transactron may be of limited precedential value given the duties of present-day employers to recognize hazards in the workplace, which includes reasonable steps to prevent workplace violence. (See Cal. Lab. Code, § 6401.7; 6401.9.)

ADJ12214846 · March 25, 2024

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.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page