What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinded the January 16, 2026 Findings of Fact, and substituted a new Findings of Fact finding the claim of injury is not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) and deferring all other issues.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact issued January 16, 2026, which found injury arising out of and in the course of employment to applicant's right knee. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration recommending denial of reconsideration. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the January 16, 2026 Findings, and substituted a new Findings deferring all other issues except that the claim is not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9).
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 Appeals Board found that the claim of injury is not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) and deferred all other issues due to lack of substantial medical evidence and the need for further record development.
From the decision · page 12Accordingly, we grant reconsideration and rescind the Findings of Fact and substitute a new Findings of Fact that finds that the claim of injury is not barred by section 3600(a)(9) and defers all other issues. We make no other substantive changes.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was a police lieutenant required to maintain POST certification and was highly recommended to keep physically fit, which included seeking additional training such as Brazilian jiu-jitsu.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the finding that applicant's subjective belief that participation in Brazilian jiu-jitsu was expected by employer was objectively reasonable, making the injury compensable.
From the decision · page 6Here, while there was no specific CPT requirement that officers and sergeants had to undergo, POST was required of all sworn officers, and lieutenants and captains were "highly recommended" to keep fit (Minutes of Hearing, page 10, lines 15-16).21 Due to the lack of formal, regimented requirements, it was inferred that lieutenants and captains would need to seek out additional opportunities to remain physically fit, which could include Brazilian jiu-jistu, as this training worked on take down techniques.22 The Applicant did not just have a desk job. He also went into the field at least once a week.23 This included enforcement of illegal homeless encampments (Minutes of Hearing, page 6, line 5),24 as managers were asked to work more in the field (Minutes of Hearing, page 6, line 9).25
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) exclusion for injuries sustained during recreational activities not required by employment.
The Board found the claim is not barred by this section as applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
From the decision · page 12Accordingly, we grant reconsideration and rescind the Findings of Fact and substitute a new Findings of Fact that finds that the claim of injury is not barred by section 3600(a)(9) and defers all other issues. We make no other substantive changes.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's subjective belief that participation in Brazilian jiu-jitsu was expected by employer and was objectively reasonable given the circumstances of lieutenants and captains needing to maintain POST certification and physical fitness recommendations.
From the decision · page 6Here, while there was no specific CPT requirement that officers and sergeants had to undergo, POST was required of all sworn officers, and lieutenants and captains were "highly recommended" to keep fit (Minutes of Hearing, page 10, lines 15-16).21 Due to the lack of formal, regimented requirements, it was inferred that lieutenants and captains would need to seek out additional opportunities to remain physically fit, which could include Brazilian jiu-jistu, as this training worked on take down techniques.22 The Applicant did not just have a desk job. He also went into the field at least once a week.23 This included enforcement of illegal homeless encampments (Minutes of Hearing, page 6, line 5),24 as managers were asked to work more in the field (Minutes of Hearing, page 6, line 9).25
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.