Applicant was shot while performing his regular job duties at a community car wash.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established that the injury occurred in the course of employment.
From the decision · page 2Here, as set forth by the WCJ, applicant demonstrated that his claimed injury arose out of
and in the course of employment. Applicant credibly testified that when he was shot, he was at
the location due to his employment and was engaged in his regular job duties, and he credibly
testified that he did not know why he was shot. Once applicant provided that evidence, the burden
shifted to defendant.
Applicant credibly testified he did not know the assailants or the motive for the shooting.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the finding that the injury arose out of employment under the neutral risk doctrine.
From the decision · page 7Applicant presented testimony and evidence that the motive, if any, behind the
actions of the third-party assailants who shot him on March 24, 2024 are
unknown and that the shooters themselves were unknown to him. Applicant
credibly and persuasively testified at trial that he "did not recognize the names
of the people who shot him," "does not know if the assailants were in a gang,"
"never [saw] them before," "does not know why the attack happened," "does not
know why he was shot," and "his shooting was not gang related." (Summary of
Evidence, March 5, 2024 Trial, page 4, lines 24-25, page 5, lines 1-2 and 11-
12). During his recorded statement, Applicant referred to the shooting as a
"random attack" (Joint Exhibit 2, page 1), and stated he "didn't see who did it"
(Joint Exhibit 2, page 2). When interviewed by officers from the Los Angeles
Police Department (LAPD) while in the hospital on the day of the shooting,
Applicant stated "he did not see the suspects and did not know why he might
have been targeted" (Joint Exhibit 3, page 93 and page 99).
Applicant's employment required him to enter high-risk gang areas, placing him at greater risk than the general public.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported application of the special risk-zone of danger doctrine making the injury compensable.
From the decision · page 8Applicant credibly and persuasively testified that he is a former gang member,
that he began working for different non-profit organizations to provide services
to the community and gang intervention after being released from prison. He
testified that the work required him to enter "hot zones," which he described as
high-risk communities with gang activity in places such as Koreatown in
downtown Los Angeles (Summary of Evidence, March 5, 2024 Trial, page 3,
lines 14-25). He testified that at the time of his injury he was a Community
Health Worker passing out COVID kits in highly active gang areas and that "the