What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted for the limited purpose of amending the employer finding; denial of injury AOE/COE otherwise affirmed.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order denying injury AOE/COE; WCAB granted reconsideration to amend the employer finding but otherwise affirmed denial.
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.
Applicant failed to prove that the injury occurred on premises owned or controlled by his employer; the property was owned by a separate entity and not controlled by Arcata Forest Products.
From the decision · page 5In summary, applicant asks us to extend the premises line rule to circumstances where he has offered no evidence that he suffered an injury at a time that the employer-employee relationship existed. Applicant simply did not present sufficient evidence that he injured himself on premises controlled or owned by his employer, and we decline to extend the premises line rule to the facts of this case.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Figas Construction property where the injury occurred was owned by a separate entity (LLC owned by Robert Figas and his wife), not by Arcata Forest Products.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Ownership and control of the premises is required for the premises line rule to apply; lack thereof defeated compensability.
Arcata Forest Products did not control or regularly use the Figas Construction property for business purposes.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Control or regular use is required for the premises line rule; occasional equipment presence was insufficient.
From the decision · page 5We agree with the WCJ that the occasional presence of a piece of equipment does not establish that Arcata Forest Products "controlled" the Figas property for the purposes of the premises line rule.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code § 3600(a)(2)
Injury must occur while employee is performing service growing out of and incidental to employment and acting within the course of employment (Lab. Code § 3600(a)(2)).
Applied to determine whether injury occurred on employer's premises or during course of employment.
From the decision · page 3An employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) Whether an employee's injury arose out of and in the course of employment is generally a question of fact to be determined in light of the particular circumstances of the case. (Wright v. Beverly Fabrics (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 346 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 51].) Labor Code section 3600, subdivision (a)(2) requires as a condition of compensation that "at the time of the injury, the employee is performing service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment and is acting within the course of his or her employment." (Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(2).)
California Casualty Indem. Exchange v. IAC (1943) 21 Cal.2d 751
Premises line rule: injuries sustained on premises owned or controlled by employer are generally compensable; going and coming rule otherwise applies.
Applied to determine whether the property where injury occurred was employer's premises.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Testimony from Robert Figas and Julie Moug established that the Figas Construction property was owned by a separate entity and not used by Arcata Forest Products for equipment storage.
Applicant's testimony regarding equipment storage was contradicted by other witnesses and not credited.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.