ADJ15489825 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Findings and Award affirmed except amended to apply heart presumption under Labor Code Section 3212; Labor Code 4850 benefits awarded for 11/8/2021 to 10/3/2022

Petition for Reconsideration granted in part, Findings and Award amended to include heart presumption under Labor Code Section 3212

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 prevailedheart

The applicant's job duties as a custody assistant constitute active law enforcement, entitling her to the heart presumption under Labor Code Section 3212.

From the decision · page 6In the case at hand, the applicant, a full-time salaried custody assistant who worked for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department inside the Inmate Reception Center, was charged with supervising up to15 male inmates daily and authorized to search or detain them. She was also responsible for booking and releasing inmates. The fact that she wore a duty belt with law enforcement equipment including handcuffs, pepper spray, a radio and a flashlight demonstrated that she was exposed to imminent harm and required to maintain jail security. In fact, her personnel records (Exhibit B) contain a written commendation dated March 16, 2011 for assisting a senior deputy to control and restrain an inmate who exuberated erratic behavior and repeatedly struck his head against a glass window and a floor. the applicant testified at trial that on one occasion, she was alone and had to take corrective action against an unruly inmate by telling him to face the wall so she could handcuff him. Though the applicant is not a sworn peace officer, her job duties constitute active law enforcement, and her exposure to danger from working closely with inmates places her within the scope of the statutory framework intended to protect such safety personnel. Therefore, the applicant should be entitled to the heart presumption under Labor Code Section 3212.

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant's job duties as a custody assistant involved supervising inmates, authorized to detain and search them, and wearing law enforcement equipment, constituting active law enforcement service.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact established entitlement to the heart presumption under Labor Code Section 3212.

From the decision · page 6In the case at hand, the applicant, a full-time salaried custody assistant who worked for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department inside the Inmate Reception Center, was charged with supervising up to15 male inmates daily and authorized to search or detain them. She was also responsible for booking and releasing inmates. The fact that she wore a duty belt with law enforcement equipment including handcuffs, pepper spray, a radio and a flashlight demonstrated that she was exposed to imminent harm and required to maintain jail security. In fact, her personnel records (Exhibit B) contain a written commendation dated March 16, 2011 for assisting a senior deputy to control and restrain an inmate who exuberated erratic behavior and repeatedly struck his head against a glass window and a floor. the applicant testified at trial that on one occasion, she was alone and had to take corrective action against an unruly inmate by telling him to face the wall so she could handcuff him. Though the applicant is not a sworn peace officer, her job duties constitute active law enforcement, and her exposure to danger from working closely with inmates places her within the scope of the statutory framework intended to protect such safety personnel. Therefore, the applicant should be entitled to the heart presumption under Labor Code Section 3212.

Dr. Weber's medical opinion found the heart injury to be 70% industrially caused based on work stress and COVID-19 related increased workload.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This opinion constituted substantial medical evidence supporting industrial causation of the heart injury.

From the decision · page 7Dr. Weber supported his opinion of industrial causation of the applicant's heart trouble by reiterating her description of increased work stress, including the consequence of the COVID pandemic and how it affected her workload. Dr. Weber stated that on the basis of the research cited, he determined that the applicant's myocardial infarction and spontaneous dissection of the right coronary artery was 70% industrial, and 30% non-industrial (Exhibit BB, page 5-6). In a supplemental report dated December 9, 2022, Dr. Weber pointed out that the applicant did not have a history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia or diabetes mellitus. He also determined that the applicant was temporarily totally disabled from November 7, 2021 until October 3, 2022. the applicant had informed Dr. Weber that she had returned to work as a custody assistant on October 4, 2022 (Exhibit CC, page 2). After reviewing additional medical records pertaining to the onset of the applicant's myocardial infarction as well as her subsequent medical treatment for her heart symptomatology, Dr. Weber did not alter his opinion on industrial causation (Exhibit DD, page 10).

Applicant testified credibly about work stressors and escalation during the COVID-19 pandemic, corroborating Dr. Weber's opinion.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Credible testimony supported the finding of industrial causation for the heart injury.

From the decision · page 8Since Dr. Weber did obtain a reliable history from the applicant, conduct a physical examination of the applicant, review pertinent medical records, and address the heart presumption, his finding of industrial causation for the applicant's heart condition were aligned with the legal standards of substantial medical evidence in McAllister and Stephens. Dr. Weber's opinion was unrebutted by any other medical opinion, and no other evidence was presented to suggest that his opinion was predicated on speculation, erroneous information, inaccurate history, or incorrect legal theory. At trial, the applicant testified credibly about her work stressors from constantly being around inmates and the escalation of her stress during the height of the COVID -19 pandemic (SOE, pg. 2). She also testified that approximately one month prior to the heart incident, she felt pressure on her chest while driving to work and joked with her co-workers that she thought she was having a heart attack. Ms.

The rules the panel named

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

E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922

Medical opinion must be predicated on reasonable medical probability and not be speculative, based on pertinent facts and adequate examination and history, with reasoning in support of conclusions.

Applied to evaluate Dr. Weber's medical opinion as substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 1To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion "must be predicated on reasonable medical probability." (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416§ 17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A physician's report must also be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases

Labor Code Section 3212

Labor Code Section 3212 provides a presumption of industrial injury for heart trouble for specified law enforcement employees.

Applied to determine applicability of heart presumption to applicant's job duties.

From the decision · page 5The statute holds that the term "injury" includes pneumonia and heart trouble that develops or manifests itself during a period while the member is in the service of said agencies. The hernia, heart trouble or pneumonia so developing or manifesting itself in those cases shall be presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment. The presumption is disputable and controverted by other evidence, but if it is not uncontroverted, the appeals board is bound to find accordance with it. The compensation awarded for hernia, heart trouble or pneumonia shall include full hospital, surgical, medical treatment, disability indemnity, and death benefits as provided by the workers' compensation laws of the state of California.

Labor Code Section 4850

Labor Code Section 4850 provides leave of absence with pay for public safety officers in lieu of temporary disability benefits.

Applied to determine applicant's entitlement to benefits for temporary total disability period.

From the decision · page 9Clearly, the applicant's duties as a custodial assistant would not place her in the excluded employee category. She completed a course through an academy to qualify for her to work as a custodial assistant. the applicant has the authority to detain inmates, to search them, and to respond to emergencies. Thus, her job functions come within the scope of active law enforcement service which entitle her to leave of absence with pay in lieu of temporary disability benefits. In the case of Kimball v. County of Santa Clara (1972) 24 Cal App 3d 780; 37 Cal Comp Cases 937, a correctional officer in the sheriff's department whose duties included supervising the conduct of inmates in living quarters, during meals and bathing, at recreation and on work assignments, was found entitled to Labor Code Section 4850 benefits. The Court of Appeal citing Noroian v. Department of Administration, 11 Cal. App.

ADJ15489825 · June 7, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

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

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page