What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied
Petition for reconsideration of Findings and Award Re: Claim of Serious and Willful Misconduct 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.
Serious and willful misconductDefendant prevailedshoulders · cervical spine · lumbar spine
The employer was justified in relying on a mechanic's inspection report that the vehicle was safe to drive, and there was no evidence of willful misconduct by a supervisory person with knowledge of the risk. Applicant did not meet the burden to show serious and willful misconduct under Labor Code section 4553.
From the decision · page 3The second finding of fact, that applicant was not injured by reason of any serious and willful misconduct of the employer defendant, Recess Holdings/First Group, is based on the vehicle inspection report admitted without objection as Defendant's Exhibit II, and applicant's testimony describing that report and her inspection and use of the vehicle that she was driving on the morning of her awarded work injury of August 30, 2015. According to the report, although there was an electrical short in the vehicle the previous day, the mechanic had said the vehicle was "OK TO DRIVE." Applicant and her employer were both equally justified in relying upon this representation in the report in assuming that the vehicle was safe to operate. This assumption proved