What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration DENIED.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's finding of industrial injury; WCAB reviewed and denied the petition.
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.
Applicant was performing a task for which he was hired, caring for the patient, while still on the employer's premises, and such activity was reasonably anticipated by the employer even though applicant had clocked out. No evidence showed applicant was acting inconsistently with his employment.
From the decision · page 7This claim is straightforward. Though applicant was no longer "on the clock," he was performing the task for which he was hired by the defendant, caring for the patient, while still on the premises to which he was assigned by the employer. It is certainly anticipated by the employer that applicant should have continued to assist the patient, who struggled with balance, with walking to bed even though he had already clocked out for his shift. In fact, no testimony was elicited as to any policies the employer may have had for caretaking, clocking out, or even staying beyond one's shift. Given the nature of the employment, the employer could not have expected that applicant
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was still on the employer's premises and performing a task (helping the patient to bed) reasonably anticipated by the employer after clocking out.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established that the injury occurred in the course of employment and was compensable.
From the decision · page 7This claim is straightforward. Though applicant was no longer "on the clock," he was performing the task for which he was hired by the defendant, caring for the patient, while still on the premises to which he was assigned by the employer. It is certainly anticipated by the employer that applicant should have continued to assist the patient, who struggled with balance, with walking to bed even though he had already clocked out for his shift. In fact, no testimony was elicited as to any policies the employer may have had for caretaking, clocking out, or even staying beyond one's shift. Given the nature of the employment, the employer could not have expected that applicant
No evidence was presented that applicant was acting inconsistently with his employment at the time of injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported finding that the injury was industrial and not excluded by any employer policy or conduct.
From the decision · page 8Lastly, in Barragan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Barragan) (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 637 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 467], the Court of Appeal explicitly held that "there is a long line of case law establishing the rule that one need not receive actual payment of money or wages in order to be an employee for purposes of the Workers Compensation Act." (Id. at p. 649.) As outlined above, continuing to assist the patient by helping him to bed after boxing up prepared food is certainly a contemplated use of the premises whether or not applicant was "on the clock" at the time. Defendant has provided no evidence that applicant was acting in any way that was inconsistent with his employment, regardless of whether or not he was going to stay on the premises overnight.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(2); LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644; Western Greyhound Lines v. Industrial. Acc. Com. (Brooks) (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 517; Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (Helm) (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 669
An employee is acting within the course of employment when performing reasonable tasks permitted by the employment contract, and injuries occurring during reasonable and anticipatable use of the employer's premises are compensable.
Applied to find that applicant's injury, though after clocking out, occurred while performing a task reasonably anticipated by the employer on the employer's premises.
From the decision · page 7This claim is straightforward. Though applicant was no longer "on the clock," he was performing the task for which he was hired by the defendant, caring for the patient, while still on the premises to which he was assigned by the employer. It is certainly anticipated by the employer that applicant should have continued to assist the patient, who struggled with balance, with walking to bed even though he had already clocked out for his shift. In fact, no testimony was elicited as to any policies the employer may have had for caretaking, clocking out, or even staying beyond one's shift. Given the nature of the employment, the employer could not have expected that applicant
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ's credibility determinations given great weight because the WCJ observed the demeanor of the witnesses; no evidence of substantiality to reject those determinations.
From the decision · page 8We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500, 504-505].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations (Id.) Here, defendant's arguments regarding the applicant's credibility are simply not persuasive. It is worth noting that defendant relies on a supposed timestamp from
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.