ADJ20868523 — California WCAB decision

ADJ20868523 · August 17, 2026

Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is granted. Final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review and submission of accessible video evidence in EAMS. Defendant must file the coach video of the incident in accessible format within 20 days or petition is subject to dismissal.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Oakland

What the panel ordered

Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision issued May 14, 2026. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration recommending denial. The Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review and submission of accessible video evidence.

Read the official 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.

AOE/COEDefendant prevailedright elbow · right wrist · right hand

The WCJ found injury to right elbow, wrist, and hand arising out of and in the course of employment. The issue of injury to psyche was deferred. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review video evidence relevant to the injury circumstances.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision (FA&O) issued on May 14, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the FA&O, as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed by defendant on March 25, 2025 as a Transit Operator, Occupational Group Number 250, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to his right elbow, right wrist, and right hand. The issue of injury to the psyche required development and was deferred. Defendant contends in relevant part that the WCJ denied defendant due process by taking trial testimony without a court reporter, then ordering the testimony to be retaken, and exercising an excess of power by asking the parties to appear the next business day to review video evidence; and that the decision is not based on substantial evidence. We received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition for Reconsideration be denied. We have considered the allegations of the Petition, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our preliminary review of the record, we will grant defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration and we will issue a notice of intention and order defendant to file Joint Exhibit

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 3600

Injury must arise out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE).

The WCJ and Appeals Board applied this standard to determine compensability of injury to right elbow, wrist, and hand.

From the decision · page 5We highlight several legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter. California has a no-fault workers’ compensation system. With few exceptions, all California employers are liable for the compensation provided by the system to employees injured or disabled in the course of and arising out of their employment, “irrespective of the fault of either party.” (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) The protective goal of California’s no-fault workers’ compensation legislation is manifested “by defining ‘employment’ broadly in terms of ‘service to an employer’ and by including a general presumption that any person ‘in service to another’ is a covered ‘employee.’” (Lab. Code, §§ 3351, 5705(a); S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80.) Notwithstanding the above, Labor Code section 3600 only imposes liability on an employer for workers’ compensation benefits if an employee sustains an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). An employer is liable for workers’ compensation benefits, where, at the time of the injury, an employee is “performing service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment and is acting within the course of employment.” (Lab.

LaTourette v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644

Two-prong test for AOE/COE: injury must occur in the course of employment and arise out of employment.

The Appeals Board cited this case to explain the legal test for compensability of injury.

From the decision · page 5We highlight several legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter. California has a no-fault workers’ compensation system. With few exceptions, all California employers are liable for the compensation provided by the system to employees injured or disabled in the course of and arising out of their employment, “irrespective of the fault of either party.” (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) The protective goal of California’s no-fault workers’ compensation legislation is manifested “by defining ‘employment’ broadly in terms of ‘service to an employer’ and by including a general presumption that any person ‘in service to another’ is a covered ‘employee.’” (Lab. Code, §§ 3351, 5705(a); S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80.) Notwithstanding the above, Labor Code section 3600 only imposes liability on an employer for workers’ compensation benefits if an employee sustains an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). An employer is liable for workers’ compensation benefits, where, at the time of the injury, an employee is “performing service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment and is acting within the course of employment.” (Lab.

ADJ20868523 · August 17, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page