ADJ14266971 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted in part to amend findings regarding injury to right ankle and left leg; otherwise Findings and Order affirmed.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order issued June 6, 2022, challenging compensability and injury findings; the WCAB granted reconsideration in part and amended the findings.

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/COEApplicant prevailedcervical spine · right shoulder · right elbow · right hand · right wrist · right ankle · left leg

The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight; applicant's testimony that assisting other trainers was customary and known to supervisors was credited; the bunkhouse rule applied as applicant was making reasonable use of employer's premises; injury to cervical spine, right shoulder, right elbow, right hand, and right wrist was found compensable; injury to right ankle and left leg was deferred due to insufficient medical evidence.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 6, 2022, wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his cervical spine, right shoulder, right elbow, right hand, right wrist, right ankle, and left leg.1

The rules the panel named

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

Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 247 Cal. App. 2d 669

Bunkhouse rule: injury while making reasonable use of employer's premises is compensable even during leisure time if employee required to live on premises.

Applied to find injury compensable despite occurring off duty because applicant lived on employer's premises and was making reasonable use of them.

From the decision · page 7Defendant contends that the bunkhouse rule does not apply to this case because the applicant was"... not at his apartment/residence at the time of injury; he was at his workplace at the time of injury." (Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration dated June 22, 2022, page 4, line 20). This is not an accurate statement of the law. The bunkhouse rule, as simply stated in Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 247 Cal. App. 2d 669 at page 678, provides that:

Wright v. State of California (2015) 233 Cal. App. 4th 1218

Bunkhouse rule applies beyond living quarters to reasonable use of employer's premises.

Cited to support that injury need not occur within bunkhouse to be compensable under bunkhouse rule.

From the decision · page 7The application of the bunkhouse rule is not limited to injuries that occur within the employee's living space or sleeping quarters. It applies to injuries occurring while making a reasonable use of the employer's premises. In Wright v. State of California (2015) 233 Cal. App. 4th 1218 [80 Cal. Comp. Cases 157] the Court of Appeal discussed the application of the bunkhouse rule noting on page 1236 that"... many cases demonstrate that it is not a requirement that the employee was injured within the confines of the bunkhouse for the rule to apply." Other cases illustrating' this principle include Truck Ins. Exchange v. Industrial Ace, Com., 27 Cal.2d 813 [167 P.2d 705], where an employee was killed in an automobile accident upon a public road after his day's work as a ranch hand had been completed, and State Comp. Ins, Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com., 194 Cal. 28 [227 P, 168], where a hotel maid was injured on a public sidewalk outside her employer's premises as she left those premises on a personal errand on her day off.

State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1924) 194 Cal. 28

Employee sleeping on employer's premises is considered performing services incidental to employment while on premises.

Applied to find applicant performing incidental services at time of injury on employer's premises.

From the decision · page 8"... when the contract of employment contemplates that the employees shall sleep upon the premises of the employer, the employee, under such circumstances, is considered to be performing services growing out of and incidental to such employment during the time he is on the premises of the employer."

ADJ14266971 · August 18, 2022

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