ADJ1829851 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Denial of defendant's petition for reconsideration; WCJ's finding that injury arose out of and in the course of employment is affirmed.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on November 21, 2025; the WCJ found injury arose out of and in the course of employment; the WCAB denied reconsideration on April 29, 2025.

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 prevailedneck · back

The WCJ and WCAB found that applicant was acting within the course of employment by attempting to retrieve the employer's stolen vehicle for the employer's benefit, and that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment despite defendant's argument that the applicant's final actions were an unauthorized departure from employment.

From the decision · page 9Accordingly, applicant was acting within the course of his employment by attempting to retrieve the employer's vehicle for his employer's benefit. Therefore, applicant's resulting injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and is compensable. (Williams, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d at pp. 940-941; Westbrooks, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at pp. 253-254.) We therefore affirm the WCJ's decision and deny reconsideration.

The rules the panel named

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

Westbrooks v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 249

An injury arises out of and in the course of employment if the employee's actions are within the scope of expected service, even if contrary to employer policies.

The WCJ and WCAB applied this standard to find the applicant's actions compensable despite policy violations.

From the decision · page 6Westbrooks notes that the course of employment is defined by "such service as the employee is expected to render." (Westbrooks at p. 159) ([Opinion] at pp. 8-9.) To me, this brings in the expectations and beliefs of the Applicant into consideration. It appears clear to me that the Applicant in this case was not chasing the thief as part of a personal agenda and/or for reasons unrelated to his employment, but rather because he felt a duty and/or obligation in an effort to safeguard and/or protect and/or to help return the city's stolen property. That motivation was noted by Chief Luby in his recommendation after the Skelly hearing to impose less than the requested discipline sought by the city, i.e. a suspension of 7 days without pay rather than 14.

Labor Code section 3202

Liberal interpretation of workers' compensation law to benefit injured workers.

The WCJ and WCAB applied this statute to interpret the course of employment broadly in favor of the applicant.

From the decision · page 6..cases, and that the defendant's efforts to distinguish them legally or factually fall flat. To the extent that a determination regarding this AOE/COE analysis at some point requires a determination of whether a certain line was crossed, I also considered the directives of liberal interpretation and application of workers' compensation law, as reflected in Labor Code section 3202, and cases such as Dimmig v. Workman's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 860, 866-867, 36 Cal.Comp.Cases 621, and Lujan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals. Bd. (1985) 175 Cal. App. 3d 212, 216-217, 50 Cal.Comp.Cases 693.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

activities of daily livingfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's motivation to retrieve employer's stolen vehicle was reasonable and related to his employment duties.

From the decision · page 5perception of his duty to retrieve the truck was "reasonable." (Petition for Reconsideration, p. 6.)

activities of daily livingfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant did not intend to cause damage and was passively blocking the stolen vehicle; the thief rammed applicant's vehicle causing injury.

From the decision · page 6(Joint Exhibits 103 and 104.)... In my view, it is clear from the evidence that the Applicant tried to passively block the stolen vehicle by placing his own truck in front of the stolen truck when it was stopped at an intersection. He did not ram or attempt to ram or collide with the vehicle. It was the thief who intentionally rammed the Applicant in his truck, and pushed it through the intersection, again fleeing the scene. The Applicant did not seek or intend to cause damage to one or both vehicles, which I think is an important distinction, and I am not persuaded that when he tried to obstruct the stopped stolen truck at the intersection that he somehow, at that last second stepped outside the course or scope of his employment as argued by the defendant.

activities of daily livingfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's conduct did not rise to wanton and reckless disregard necessary for serious and willful misconduct reduction.

From the decision · page 8On the issue of whether Applicant engaged in S&W misconduct justifying a decrease in his workers' compensation benefits pursuant to Labor Code § 4551, Defendant argued that Applicant intentionally and willfully engaged in and instigated a road rage incident that he knew or reasonably could have foreseen would lead to injuries, and that he acted in reckless disregard of the possible consequences by failing to leave the scene. According to the WCJ, however, Applicant's conduct, while perhaps lacking good judgment, did not rise to the level of wanton and reckless disregard of the possible danger necessary to establish S&W misconduct.

ADJ1829851 · April 29, 2025

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