ADJ20868523 · August 17, 2026

The WCJ found injury to right elbow, wrist, and hand arising out of and in the course of employment. The issue of injury to psyche was deferred. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review video evidence relevant to the injury circumstances.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision (FA&O) issued on May 14, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the FA&O, as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed by defendant on March 25, 2025 as a Transit Operator, Occupational Group Number 250, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to his right elbow, right wrist, and right hand. The issue of injury to the psyche required development and was deferred. Defendant contends in relevant part that the WCJ denied defendant due process by taking trial testimony without a court reporter, then ordering the testimony to be retaken, and exercising an excess of power by asking the parties to appear the next business day to review video evidence; and that the decision is not based on substantial evidence. We received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition for Reconsideration be denied. We have considered the allegations of the Petition, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our preliminary review of the record, we will grant defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration and we will issue a notice of intention and order defendant to file Joint Exhibit

Coach video evidence was not accessible in the required format in EAMS, preventing meaningful review of the injury circumstances.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Without access to the video, the Appeals Board could not fully assess the injury claim and reconsideration was necessary.

From the decision · page 7Here, based on our preliminary review, defendant claims in part that applicant’s injury arose out of an altercation in which he was the initial physical aggressor, and applicant abandoned his job to pursue the passenger who posed no threat to applicant. (Petition, p. 10, lines 4-7.) However, without the ability to review the video, we cannot conduct a meaningful review on reconsideration. According to defendant and applicant, the WCJ asked the parties to appear on May 11, 2026 with a laptop so the WCJ could view the coach video evidence, and defendant did in fact appear with a laptop so the WCJ could review the video. (Petition, p. 6, lines 7-17; Answer, p. 4, lines 7-19.) Notably, although the coach video of the March 25, 2026 incident was jointly admitted into evidence, the video does not appear viewable directly from EAMS. A review of the evidence labeled as Joint Exhibit 101 consists of a web address to a third-party platform that when clicked is inaccessible.

Anticipated industrial causation for right wrist, hand, and elbow due to injury on March 25, 2025.

From the decision · page 2We will briefly review the relevant facts. Applicant, while employed as a transit operator, claimed injury to the right elbow, right wrist, right hand, and psyche arising out of and occurring in the course of employment by defendant on March 25, 2025. Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), Anuj Gupta, M.D., opined that he anticipated there was industrial causation for the right wrist and hand and right elbow due to the industrial injury which occurred on March 25, 2025. (App. Exh. 1, June 28, 2025, p. 13, ¶ 6.) Defendant denied applicant’s claim, finding no evidence that an injury occurred as reported; applicant abandoned his job by leaving the bus to pursue the passenger; and applicant’s claim is barred by the initial aggressor rule. (Def. Exh. B, April 18, 2025, p. 1, ¶ 1; Pre-Trial Conference Statement, September 24, 2025, p.

Labor Code section 3600

Injury must arise out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE).

The WCJ and Appeals Board applied this standard to determine compensability of injury to right elbow, wrist, and hand.

From the decision · page 5We highlight several legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter. California has a no-fault workers’ compensation system. With few exceptions, all California employers are liable for the compensation provided by the system to employees injured or disabled in the course of and arising out of their employment, “irrespective of the fault of either party.” (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) The protective goal of California’s no-fault workers’ compensation legislation is manifested “by defining ‘employment’ broadly in terms of ‘service to an employer’ and by including a general presumption that any person ‘in service to another’ is a covered ‘employee.’” (Lab. Code, §§ 3351, 5705(a); S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80.) Notwithstanding the above, Labor Code section 3600 only imposes liability on an employer for workers’ compensation benefits if an employee sustains an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). An employer is liable for workers’ compensation benefits, where, at the time of the injury, an employee is “performing service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment and is acting within the course of employment.” (Lab.

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

Two-prong test for AOE/COE: injury must occur in the course of employment and arise out of employment.

The Appeals Board cited this case to explain the legal test for compensability of injury.

From the decision · page 5We highlight several legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter. California has a no-fault workers’ compensation system. With few exceptions, all California employers are liable for the compensation provided by the system to employees injured or disabled in the course of and arising out of their employment, “irrespective of the fault of either party.” (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.) The protective goal of California’s no-fault workers’ compensation legislation is manifested “by defining ‘employment’ broadly in terms of ‘service to an employer’ and by including a general presumption that any person ‘in service to another’ is a covered ‘employee.’” (Lab. Code, §§ 3351, 5705(a); S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 354 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 80.) Notwithstanding the above, Labor Code section 3600 only imposes liability on an employer for workers’ compensation benefits if an employee sustains an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). An employer is liable for workers’ compensation benefits, where, at the time of the injury, an employee is “performing service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment and is acting within the course of employment.” (Lab.

Coach video evidence of incident on March 25, 2025, was jointly admitted but not accessible in EAMS, necessitating reconsideration to review the video for a complete record.

From the decision · page 7Here, based on our preliminary review, defendant claims in part that applicant’s injury arose out of an altercation in which he was the initial physical aggressor, and applicant abandoned his job to pursue the passenger who posed no threat to applicant. (Petition, p. 10, lines 4-7.) However, without the ability to review the video, we cannot conduct a meaningful review on reconsideration. According to defendant and applicant, the WCJ asked the parties to appear on May 11, 2026 with a laptop so the WCJ could view the coach video evidence, and defendant did in fact appear with a laptop so the WCJ could review the video. (Petition, p. 6, lines 7-17; Answer, p. 4, lines 7-19.) Notably, although the coach video of the March 25, 2026 incident was jointly admitted into evidence, the video does not appear viewable directly from EAMS. A review of the evidence labeled as Joint Exhibit 101 consists of a web address to a third-party platform that when clicked is inaccessible.