What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted to clarify Finding No. 4; Findings and Orders of December 9, 2024 amended and affirmed in part; injury to right wrist and right hand found compensable; other injury issues deferred with jurisdiction reserved.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Orders of December 9, 2024, which found industrial injury to applicant's right wrist and right hand, with other injury issues deferred. The WCAB granted reconsideration to clarify findings and affirmed the injury finding.
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 WCJ and WCAB found that applicant was injured in the course of employment while performing usual and customary duties benefiting the employer, even though she was not scheduled to work that day, supported by credible testimony and legal precedent.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Orders of December 9, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed on March 16, 2023 as an activity assistant, applicant sustained industrial injury to her right wrist and right hand causing the need for further medical treatment to those body parts. Applicant also claims injury to the head, neck, right arm, right shoulder, right hip and lumbar spine as a result of the March 16, 2023 incident, but the issue of injury to those body parts was deferred.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was injured while performing her usual and customary job duties leading activities with residents, conferring a benefit to the employer, even though she was not scheduled to work that day.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact supported the finding of injury in the course of employment and compensability of the claim.
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.
Examined applicant and treated her for right wrist injury and occipital scalp contusion after the March 16, 2023 injury.
From the decision · page 7The Applicant testified on Day 2 and Day 3 of the trial. (MOH/SOE Day 2, 7/22/24 at pp. 18-22, and MOH/SOE Day 3, 8/29/24 at pp 2-10.) On March 16, 2023, she was in the activity room with Yordanos and the residents playing a game with a balloon, when she fell down backwards near the tables by the door when trying to retrieve the balloon. (Id. at p. 19.) Yordanos and the nurse from next door came over, and asked if she was all right, and she said she was okay, but she was not herself. (Id.) She got up with Yordanos' help. (Id.) She does not know why the Corrected Time Sheet from March 16, 2023 (Joint 103) is not signed by a supervisor. (MOH/SOE Day 3 8/29/24 at p. 2.) When she went to the Concentra occupational clinic the next day, she saw Dr. Aundrea Wilson and reported what happened, specifically that she had injured her right and wrist, which had pain of 10/10 and had also suffered a contusion of her occipital scalp. (Id. at p. 3.) She later received treatment at Concentra in the form of physical therapy and medication prescriptions. (Id.) The claim was later denied, and at that point she obtained treatment with Dr. Flores. (Id.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5402(b); Wright v. Beverly Fabrics (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 346
The Board applied these standards to affirm injury compensability despite applicant not being scheduled to work, based on credible evidence that she was performing her usual duties and conferring benefit to employer.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
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.