What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant from Findings and Award issued 12/5/2022, seeking review of compensability of injury; WCJ report adopted and reconsideration denied.
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 injury was found to be compensable as it arose out of and in the course of employment, with exposure to Legionella Pneumonia occurring during travel for employer business, and no evidence of exposure in the employee's personal life or local community risk.
From the decision · page 51. applicant, while employed during the period 7/17/2012 through 8/4/2012 in a capacity remaining in dispute in various locations beginning and ending in San Jose California by Hitachi Global Storage, insured for worker's compensation liability by Tokio Marine Insurance, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of this employment to his lungs and body systems in the form of Legionella Pneumonia as described in the medical reports admitted into evidence herein.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant contracted Legionella Pneumonia during employer-directed travel to China and the Philippines, not in his local community.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, meeting compensability requirements.
From the decision · page 51. applicant, while employed during the period 7/17/2012 through 8/4/2012 in a capacity remaining in dispute in various locations beginning and ending in San Jose California by Hitachi Global Storage, insured for worker's compensation liability by Tokio Marine Insurance, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of this employment to his lungs and body systems in the form of Legionella Pneumonia as described in the medical reports admitted into evidence herein.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 644
The injury must occur in the course of employment, referring to time, place, and circumstances of injury; and must arise out of employment, meaning a causal connection to employment risk or condition.
Applied to determine compensability of Legionella Pneumonia contracted during employer-directed travel.
From the decision · page 1The test for whether an injury is AOE/COE is well-established. (LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 644 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 253].)
Bethlehem Steel v. IAC (1943)
An injury must arise out of a risk incident to employment and be more than a hazard common to the general public to be compensable.
Applied to find that exposure to Legionella Pneumonia during foreign travel was a special risk beyond that of the general public in California, supporting compensability.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No evidence of exposure to Legionella Pneumonia in applicant's personal life or local community; exposure occurred during employer-directed travel to foreign countries with inherent disease risk.
From the decision · page 5The Applicant, Mr. Ma[t]kevitch, was directed by his employer to travel to the Far East (China and the Philippines, principally) in order to further his employer's business interests. While traveling on his employer's business, he contracted Legionnaire's disease. The available medical evidence indicates that the illness certainly came about as the result of exposure to the responsible pathogen during the course of the trip. The precise point of exposure is nearly impossible to know at this point, but the medical record indicates it was likely to have been one of the many hotels at
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.