Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 21 Cal. 2d 742
An employee can establish industrial causation of a communicable disease by showing it is more likely the disease was contracted at work or that employment subjected the employee to a special risk of exposure beyond the general population.
Applied to find industrial injury based on decedent's job duties and exposure to the public.
From the decision · page 10Therefore, in cases such as this one where the parties dispute whether
employment contributed to an employee acquiring a communicable disease, the
essential questions of when and where [decedent] contracted the disease may be
unanswerable with any certainty. In those circumstances, the Appeals Board has
explained that an employee can establish industrial causation by demonstrating
that it is more likely [decedent] acquired the disease at work or that the
employment subjected the employee to a special risk of exposure in excess of
that of the general population. (Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.
(1943) 21 Cal. 2d 742.) For example, a detective's Hepatitis B infection arose
out of and in the course of employment because the nature of his work exposed
him to drug addicts and needles and those exposures resulted in a higher
probability of contracting Hepatitis B than the general population. (City of
Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bradley) (1992) 57 Cal. Comp. Cases
375 (writ den.).) In another case, a Hepatitis C infection contracted by a sewage
worker was found industrial based on medical reporting that it was "more
probable than not" that [decedent] contracted the virus at work. (City of Turlock
v. Workers' Comp Appeals Bd. (STK09YYZZZ) (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cases
931, 934 (writ den.).)
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc)
A medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, not speculative, based on pertinent facts and adequate examination, and supported by reasoning to constitute substantial evidence.
Applied to evaluate Dr. Hendel's opinion as substantial evidence supporting industrial injury causation.
From the decision · page 10Further, any decision must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274
[39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3
Labor Code section 3501
A child under 18 or physically/mentally incapacitated child living with or legally supported by deceased employee-parent is conclusively presumed wholly dependent.
Applied to determine that granddaughter Karina was not a total dependent because she was not an employee-parent, but partial dependency was a factual issue.
From the decision · page 12(a) A child under the age of 18 years, or a child of any age found by any
trier of fact, whether contractual, administrative, regulatory, or judicial, to
be physically or mentally incapacitated from earning, shall be
conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent for support upon a
deceased employee-parent with whom that child is living at the time of
injury resulting in death of the parent or for whose maintenance the parent
was legally liable at the time of injury resulting in death of the parent.