SIMILARCASE

Loading

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ19060002 · January 20, 2026

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 1
Authorities named: 1
District office: Van Nuys

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the Finding of Fact and Orders issued on October 20, 2025, which found injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The WCJ issued a Report recommending denial of the Petition. The WCAB panel denied the Petition for Reconsideration on January 20, 2026.

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 prevailedleft elbow · left shoulder

The injury occurred while the applicant was on the employer's premises, during work hours, participating in an employer-directed investigation, which meets the requirement of arising out of and in the course of employment. The applicant was not engaged in illegal activity and no charges were filed. The injury was found to be industrially related and compensable.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seek reconsideration of Finding of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued on October 20, 2025. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment with the defendant on February 18, 2024 to the left elbow and left shoulder and deferred the issue of injury in the form of psyche.

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

ADJ19060002 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Applicant was on the employer's premises during work hours and was detained and handcuffed as part of an employer-directed investigation.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established that the injury occurred in the course of employment as the applicant was engaged in an activity reasonably attributable to employment.

From the decision · page 5Defendant's stated position that when applicant was handcuffed during an investigation he was no longer in the course of employment is without merit and borders on frivolous. At a very basic level, applicant was on the premises, going through security on-site when he was stopped. He was then allowed to proceed to go on duty and begin work, then later questioned during his shift about the medication he had with him, and thereafter detained and handcuffed. This easily meets the requirement that injury was in the course of employment as he was on the premises during work hours participating with an employer-directed investigation.

Applicant's credible testimony and medical reports of AME David Heskiaoff confirmed injury consistent with being handcuffed for an hour and 20 minutes.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported the finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

From the decision · page 4Thus, based upon applicant's credible testimony and the medical reporting of the AME David Heskiaoff M.D.(Court Exhibits X1 and X2 M.D., dated 10/31/2024 and 1/27/2025, it is found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the scope of his employment to his left shoulder and left elbow as a result of the specific injury on 2/18/2024.

Defendant did not raise any affirmative defense or evidence of deviation from employment duties.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Absence of rebuttal evidence supported the applicant's claim of compensability.

From the decision · page 8explicitly notes that they are not raising any affirmative defense to rebut a finding that the injury arose out of or occurred in the course of employment.