What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; prior Findings & Award rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings
Petition for Reconsideration granted, prior Findings & Award rescinded, matter returned to trial level for new decision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.
The WCJ's original decision did not adequately address defendant's argument about compliance with alternative safety measures and failed to resolve factual disputes about the provision and use of fall protection harnesses, which are critical to determining whether the safety order was violated and whether the violation was reckless or intentional. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded for a new decision to resolve these factual disputes and apply the correct legal standards.
From the decision · page 11Here, the WCJ's conclusion that defendant engaged in serious and willful misconduct appears to be premised upon the violation of a safety order, namely the failure to properly secure the skylights such that they could support 400 pounds of weight pursuant to Code of California Regulations, Title 8, section 1632. That applicant was able to fall through the skylight in the manner he did supports the conclusion that it was unable to support 400 pounds of weight. However, the WCJ's decision fails to address defendant's argument raised in the post-trial brief as well as the Petition that the safety order in question explicitly references a different safety order, Code of California Regulations, Title 8, section 3212, which authorizes the provision of fall protection equipment as an alternative method of securing workers from injury when working around preexisting skylights.