What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant IHSS, affirming the WCJ's finding that decedent sustained injury AOE/COE by COVID-19 resulting in death during employment.
Defendant State of California, Department of Social Services, In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued by the WCJ on March 4, 2026, which found injury AOE/COE by COVID-19 resulting in death. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation denying the Petition, which the Appeals Board adopted and incorporated.
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 QME report by Dr. Betsy Kuriakose was found to be well-reasoned, based on an adequate history and evidence, supporting the finding that decedent contracted COVID-19 during employment, resulting in death. The defendant's arguments against causation and alternative sources of infection were rejected due to lack of evidence.
From the decision · page 1Defendant State of California, Department of Social Services, In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 4, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the applicant (decedent), while employed during the period December 3, 2020, through December 17, 2020, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by COVID-19, resulting in death, and that IHSS did not meet their burden of proof to establish that decedent had concurrent employment as at the time of his injury.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Decedent contracted COVID-19 during the course of his employment as a caregiver for IHSS, supported by medical evidence and testimony.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact supports the finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment, leading to compensability and death benefits.
From the decision · page 1Defendant State of California, Department of Social Services, In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 4, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the applicant (decedent), while employed during the period December 3, 2020, through December 17, 2020, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by COVID-19, resulting in death, and that IHSS did not meet their burden of proof to establish that decedent had concurrent employment as at the time of his injury.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Dr. Kuriakose provided a well-reasoned QME report based on an adequate history and evidence, concluding that decedent's COVID-19 condition was related to his employment as a caregiver, and rejecting alternative sources of infection due to lack of evidence.
The QME report was found to be well-reasoned, based on an adequate history and evidence, and disclosed a solid underlying basis for the opinion, supporting industrial causation of COVID-19 infection leading to death.
From the decision · page 11Here, Dr. Kuriakose's QME report is well-reasoned, based on an adequate history, and discloses a solid underlying basis for the opinion. (Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604; Gatten, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th 922.) Dr. Kuriakose sets forth the reasoning behind the her opinions. (Hegglin, supra, 4 Cal.3d 162; Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 69 Cal.2d 399 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647]; Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604.) Eschewing speculation or surmise, Dr. Kuriakose repeatedly notes that her opinions are based on the available evidence. (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Brooks) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 785, 797 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 379]; Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907, 923.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 3600; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408; Rosas v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692
To be compensable, an injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment. The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. Medical evidence that industrial causation was reasonably probable, although not certain, constitutes substantial evidence for a finding of injury AOE/COE.
The QME report was found to be well-reasoned and based on adequate history and evidence, supporting the finding of injury AOE/COE by COVID-19 infection during employment.
From the decision · page 7II. To be compensable, an injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment. (Lab. Code, § 3600.) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a); 3202.5.) Medical evidence that industrial causation was reasonably probable, although not certain, constitutes substantial evidence for a finding of injury AOE/COE. (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 417 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Testimony of decedent's widow and patient Mr. Le supported the timeline and exposure history to COVID-19 at work.
From the decision · page 4Applicant (and decedent's widow) Thi Van Tran testified in relevant part as follows: The patient, Chris Le, tested positive for COVID. She believed that the test was conducted some time either on December 9, or December 10 of 2020.
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.