ADJ19139846 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration granted; arbitrator's decision rescinded; new decision finding industrial injury and deferring all other issues.

Applicant sought reconsideration of an arbitrator's Findings and Order denying compensability of a left shoulder injury sustained on October 2, 2022, which was initially found not to arise out of and in the course of employment.

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 shoulder

Applicant was on paid on-call status at the time of injury, which was found to be within the course of employment. The injury occurred while weightlifting during on-call time, which was a reasonable activity under the circumstances. The personal convenience doctrine and relevant case law supported compensability.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of an arbitrator's Findings and Order of March 15, 2024, wherein it was found that "The left shoulder injury [applicant] sustained on October 2, 2022 did not arise out of an occur in the course of employment." The arbitrator thus issued an order that applicant take nothing by way of his claim. In the Opinion on Decision, the arbitrator explained that she found that applicant was not in the course of employment at the time of injury pursuant to Labor Code Section 3660(a)(9) which states the employer is not liable for any injuries which occur during voluntary participation in an off-duty recreational, social, or athletic activity not constituting a part of the employee's work related duties, unless it was a reasonable expectancy of, or was expressly or impliedly required by the employment.

The rules the panel named

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

California Labor Code

Labor Code section 3600(a)(9)

Employer not liable for injuries during voluntary off-duty recreational activities unless reasonably expected or required by employment; not applicable here as applicant was on paid on-call status.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of an arbitrator's Findings and Order of March 15, 2024, wherein it was found that "The left shoulder injury [applicant] sustained on October 2, 2022 did not arise out of an occur in the course of employment." The arbitrator thus issued an order that applicant take nothing by way of his claim. In the Opinion on Decision, the arbitrator explained that she found that applicant was not in the course of employment at the time of injury pursuant to Labor Code Section 3660(a)(9) which states the employer is not liable for any injuries which occur during voluntary participation in an off-duty recreational, social, or athletic activity not constituting a part of the employee's work related duties, unless it was a reasonable expectancy of, or was expressly or impliedly required by the employment.

Price v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 559

Personal convenience doctrine

Acts necessary to the life, comfort, and convenience of the employee while at work are incidental to service and compensable if reasonably contemplated by employment.

From the decision · page 5The personal convenience doctrine was discussed by the Supreme Court in Price v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 559 [49 Cal.Comp.Cases 772]. In Price, the applicant arrived at his place of work 15 minutes early, as was his habit. Often the work premises were open before his official start time of 8 a.m. On the date of his injury, his workplace was closed. Instead of waiting in front of the door of the business, the applicant went back to his car, which was parked on the street. The applicant put a quart of oil into his car while he waited. While he placed oil into his car, a passing car struck Price's leg.

LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644

Two-prong test for arising out of and in the course of employment

Determines whether injury occurred in time and place of employment and has causal connection to employment.

From the decision · page 4Labor Code section 3600 imposes liability on an employer for workers' compensation benefits only if an employee sustains an injury "arising out of and in the course of employment." Whether an injury arises out of and in the course of employment requires a two-prong analysis. (LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644, 650-651 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 253].) In State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Vasquez de Vargas) (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 643, 652 [47 Cal.Comp.Cases 729], the Court of Appeal explained, "Generally, `in the course of employment' refers to the time and place of the injury. [Citation.] The phrase `arise out of employment' refers to a causal connection between the employment and the injury. [Citation.]"

ADJ19139846 · June 3, 2024

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