What the panel ordered
Findings and Award of March 24, 2021 affirmed except amended to find applicant was AOE/COE at time of injury on April 2, 2019; injury not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9).
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's Amended Findings and Award; the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration; the WCAB issued an Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration affirming the WCJ's decision with amendment.
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 on duty, authorized to be at work, and injured while working out at the on-premises gym; the 2009 waiver was not enforced and did not bar the claim; the injury was not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9).
From the decision · page 5The Applicant, Michael the applicant, on April 2, 2019, while employed as a police officer, Occupational Group Number 490, claims to have sustained injury while working out at the gym on the premises located at the City of Glendora Police Department, Glendora, CA. Applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head, neck, right wrist, right shoulder, headaches, cardiovascular system, hypertension, and vision.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was on duty and authorized to be at work on April 2, 2019, as corroborated by his testimony and Captain Williams' testimony and exhibits.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established that the injury occurred during paid work hours, supporting compensability under Labor Code section 3600(a)(9).
From the decision · page 6Applicant testified that he was authorized to be at work the morning of April 2, 2019, and his testimony is corroborated by the testimony of Captain Matt Williams and Applicant[']s Exhibit 1.
Applicant was injured while working out at the on-premises gym during his authorized work hours and while acting as the sole supervisor on duty, required to respond to critical incidents.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact directly supports the finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
From the decision · page 5The Applicant, Michael the applicant, on April 2, 2019, while employed as a police officer, Occupational Group Number 490, claims to have sustained injury while working out at the gym on the premises located at the City of Glendora Police Department, Glendora, CA. Applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head, neck, right wrist, right shoulder, headaches, cardiovascular system, hypertension, and vision.
The 2009 waiver signed by Applicant was routinely not followed and did not bar the claim; no department policy or union MOU restricted gym use during work hours.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This negated defendant's contention that the injury was off duty and barred by the waiver under Labor Code section 3600(a)(9).
From the decision · page 7Applicant signed defendant's Exhibit A, titled "FITNESS ROOM RELEASE AND WAIVER AGREEMENT," on December 24, 2009. * * * There is testimony by Applicant and witnesses that the 2009 "waiver" was routinely not followed by the Glendora Police Department
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3600(a)(9)
Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) bars benefits only for off-duty recreational, social or athletic activities.
The injury occurred on premises during regular work hours while the applicant was compensated for the time, thus not barred by this section.
Madin v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Richardson) (1956) 46 Cal.2d 90
An injury must arise out of or be proximately caused by the worker's employment to be compensable; the industrial cause need not be the sole cause, only a contributory or concurrent cause is sufficient.
The injury was found to have a sufficient connection with work activity to be compensable.
From the decision · page 6Labor Code § 3600 (a)(3) states that an injury must arise out of or be proximately caused by the worker's employment to be compensable. The requirement that the injury arise out of employment in the causal sense is broadly interpreted. Under this broad interpretation, an employee may be compensation for any injury that has any connection with work activity, unless the injury is so remotely related to the employment that is not an incident of employment. The industrial cause need not be the sole cause of the injury; it is sufficient if it is a contributory or concurrent cause. [Madin v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Richardson) (1956) 46 Cal.2d 90, 21
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony and corroboration by Captain Matt Williams and exhibits regarding on-duty status and injury circumstances.
From the decision · page 5Based upon the Applicant's credible testimony and the entire record, this judge found that the Applicant sustained a specific injury on April 2, 2019, arising out of and in the course of employment, when he was working out at the on-premises gym, while on duty at the City of Glendora police department.
Lack of evidence of any department policy or supervisor communication precluding gym use on duty; no signs or union MOU restricting gym use during work hours.
From the decision · page 8Further, there is testimony of both Applicant and Lieutenant Chris Stabio [October 26, 2020 MOH, p.5, lines 5-7], that the gym use and policy is not part of the police union's Memorandum of Understanding. In addition, there are no signs at the gym or any other location at the City of Glendora police department regarding the on premises gym.
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.