What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant seeking review of the August 2, 2022 decision; WCJ report and opinion adopted by the Appeals Board panel.
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 death was found to have arisen out of and in the course of employment because the decedent was performing services for the employer when assaulted by a coworker, and the employment was a proximate cause of the incident despite the personal animus involved.
From the decision · page 7This matter arises out of the death of an employee at the hands of a coworker. The act was intentional: The assailant, Edward Go, fired multiple gunshots at the decedent, the applicant, killing him. The issue submitted for decision is whether that death arose out of the decedent's employment. The exhibits, numbering two, consist of the transcripts of two depositions of employees of Pete's Home, a residential care facility. Trial testimony was elicited from one of those employees, a supervisor at Pete's Home, and the decedent's widow. None of that testimony was terribly helpful, but the salient facts are not disputed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The decedent was performing services for the employer at the time of the assault.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established that the injury occurred in the course of employment, supporting compensability.
The assailant was a coworker with access to the employer's premises.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This connection to the workplace distinguished the case from others where the assailant had no workplace connection, supporting compensability.
From the decision · page 5his assailant was a coworker, and one with access to the locked premises. (As stated, it is unclear whether Mr. Go actually used his key to enter the building.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Comp. and Fire Co. v. Wkrs. Comp. Appeals Bd. (Schick) (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 157
An injury arises out of and in the course of employment if the employment is a proximate cause of the injury, even if the assailant's motive is personal animus.
The court emphasized that the employment was a proximate cause of the incident based on where the employee was and what she was doing, supporting compensability despite personal motives.
California Labor Code section 3202
The principle of liberal construction in favor of employees codified in Labor Code section 3202 applies to determine compensability.
The court applied the principle of liberal construction in favor of employees to conclude the assault arose out of employment.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The decedent was performing services for the employer when assaulted by a coworker who had access to the premises.
The assailant was a coworker with a key to the premises, and the decedent was at work at the time of the assault.
From the decision · page 5his assailant was a coworker, and one with access to the locked premises. (As stated, it is unclear whether Mr. Go actually used his key to enter the building.)
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.