What the panel ordered
May 15, 2024 Findings and Order rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for consideration of Compromise and Release and further proceedings as appropriate.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant after WCJ Findings and Order denying industrial injury claim; WCJ decision dated May 15, 2024; WCAB issued interim order granting petition and encouraged mediation; parties reached settlement and matter returned to WCJ for Compromise and Release review.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold August 2, 2024, June 1, 2023.
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The WCAB rescinded the prior Findings and Order and returned the matter to the WCJ for settlement review without ruling on the merits of the petition.
From the decision · page 1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 15, 2024.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The parties reached a proposed settlement by Compromise and Release and requested return to WCJ for review.
Favours neutral
This procedural development led to the rescission of the prior decision and return to WCJ for settlement approval.
From the decision · page 2On December 16, 2024, the parties advised that a proposed settlement by Compromise and Release (C&R) had been reached, and requested return of the matter to the trial level for review of the proposed settlement.
The WCJ found no industrial injury arising out of employment on August 11, 2017, and barred compensation under Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) due to voluntary off-duty athletic activity.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This finding was the basis for the original denial of the claim, which the petition for reconsideration challenged.
From the decision · page 1In that decision, the WCJ found that decedent did not sustain industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment on August 11, 2017 resulting in his death. The WCJ further found that decedent's injury was proximately caused by his participation in a voluntary off-duty athletic activity and was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 3600(a)(9)
Applied in context of bar to compensation for injury caused by voluntary off-duty athletic activity.
From the decision · page 1In that decision, the WCJ found that decedent did not sustain industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment on August 11, 2017 resulting in his death. The WCJ further found that decedent's injury was proximately caused by his participation in a voluntary off-duty athletic activity and was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9).
Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 252
Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 252
Referenced by applicant to argue subjective belief and objective reasonableness of employer expectation for off-duty exercise.
From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that the evidence demonstrates that decedent subjectively believed that his participation in off-duty exercise was expected by his employer, and that this belief was objectively reasonable as set forth in Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 252, 259 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 611] (Ezzy) so that compensation is not barred by section 3600(a)(9).
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.