As the Legislature printed it
DIVISION 4. WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE [3200 - 6002] · PART 1. SCOPE AND OPERATION [3200 - 4418] · CHAPTER 3. Conditions of Compensation Liability [3600 - 3605]
(a) Liability for the compensation provided by this division, in lieu of any other liability whatsoever to any person except as otherwise specifically provided in Sections 3602, 3706, and 4558, shall, without regard to negligence, exist against an employer for any injury sustained by his or her employees arising out of and in the course of the employment and for the death of any employee if the injury proximately causes death, in those cases where the following conditions of compensation concur: (1) Where, at the time of the injury, both the employer and the employee are subject to the compensation provisions of this division. (2) Where, at the time of the injury, the employee is performing service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment and is acting within the course of his or her employment. (3) Where the injury is proximately caused by the employment, either with or without negligence. (4) Where the injury is not caused by the intoxication, by alcohol or the unlawful use of a controlled substance, of the injured employee. As used in this paragraph, “controlled substance” shall have the same meaning as prescribed in Section 11007 of the Health and Safety Code. (5) Where the injury is not intentionally self-inflicted. (6) Where the employee has not willfully and deliberately caused his or her own death. (7) Where the injury does not arise out of an altercation in which the injured employee is the initial physical aggressor. (8) Where the injury is not caused by the commission of a felony, or a crime which is punishable as specified in subdivision (b) of Section 17 of the Penal Code, by the injured employee, for which he or she has been convicted. (9) Where the injury does not arise out of voluntary participation in any off-duty recreational, social, or athletic activity not constituting part of the employee’s work-related duties, except where these activities are a reasonable expectancy of, or are expressly or impliedly required by, the employment. The administrative director shall promulgate reasonable rules and regulations requiring employers to post and keep posted in a conspicuous place or places a notice advising employees of the provisions of this subdivision. Failure of the employer to post the notice shall not constitute an expression of intent to waive the provisions of this subdivision. (10) Except for psychiatric injuries governed by subdivision (e) of Section 3208.3, where the claim for compensation is filed after notice of termination or layoff, including voluntary layoff, and the claim is for an injury occurring prior to the time of notice of termination or layoff, no compensation shall be paid unless the employee demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the following conditions apply: (A) The employer has notice of the injury, as provided under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 5400), prior to the notice of termination or layoff. (B) The employee’s medical records, existing prior to the notice of termination or layoff, contain evidence of the injury. (C) The date of injury, as specified in Section 5411, is subsequent to the date of the notice of termination or layoff, but prior to the effective date of the termination or layoff. (D) The date of injury, as specified in Section 5412, is subsequent to the date of the notice of termination or layoff. For purposes of this paragraph, an employee provided notice pursuant to Sections 44948.5, 44949, 44951, 44955, 72411, 87740, and 87743 of the Education Code shall be considered to have been provided a notice of termination or layoff only upon a district’s final decision not to reemploy that person. A notice of termination or layoff that is not followed within 60 days by that termination or layoff shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph, and this paragraph shall not apply until receipt of a later notice of termination or layoff. The issuance of frequent notices of termination or layoff to an employee shall be considered a bad faith personnel action and shall make this paragraph inapplicable to the employee. (b) Where an employee, or his or her dependents, receives the compensation provided by this division and secures a judgment for, or settlement of, civil damages pursuant to those specific exemptions to the employee’s exclusive remedy set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 3602 and Section 4558, the compensation paid under this division shall be credited against the judgment or settlement, and the employer shall be relieved from the obligation to pay further compensation to, or on behalf of, the employee or his or her dependents up to the net amount of the judgment or settlement received by the employee or his or her heirs, or that portion of the judgment as has been satisfied. (c) For purposes of determining whether to grant or deny a workers’ compensation claim, if an employee is injured or killed by a third party in the course of the employee’s employment, no personal relationship or personal connection shall be deemed to exist between the employee and the third party based only on a determination that the third party injured or killed the employee solely because of the third party’s personal beliefs relating to his or her perception of the employee’s race, religious creed, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
How panels applied this section
Newest released decisions whose legal-standard extraction named this section. Each quotes the passage and links to the official PDF. Unofficial guide — not legal advice.
- ADJ11687715 · 2026-09-24 · Sacramento District Office§ 3600
Determinative passage · p.4When an injured worker claims a physical injury, the injured worker has the initial burden of proving industrial causation by showing the employment was a contributing cause. (South Coast Framing v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302; § 5705.) The injured worker must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an injury arises out of and occurs in the course of employment (Labor Code §§ 3202.5, 3600(a)). “The requirement of Labor Code section 3600 is twofold. On the one hand, the injury must occur in the course of the employment. This concept ordinarily refers to the time, place, and circumstances under which the injury occurs. On the other hand, the statute requires that an injury arise out of the employment. It has long been settled that for an injury to arise out of the employment it must occur by reason of a condition or incident of the employment. That is, the employment and the injury must be linked in some causal fashion. *** The statutory proximate cause language [of section 3600] has been held to be less restrictive than that used in tort law, because of the statutory policy set forth in the Labor Code favoring awards of employee benefits.
The Board applied this standard to find that the decedent's lung cancer and death were industrially caused by employment exposure to diesel exhaust as a co-carcinogen.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ9191050 · 2026-09-21 · Los Angeles District Office§ 3600
Determinative passage · p.6III. We now turn to the issue of whether the post-termination defense under section 3600(a)(10) applies. The WCJ found applicant’s claim to be barred by section 3600(a)(10), which provides in pertinent part that: (10) Except for psychiatric injuries governed by subdivision (e) of Section 3208.3, where the claim for compensation is filed after notice of termination or layoff, including voluntary layoff, and the claim is for an injury occurring prior to the time of notice of termination or layoff, no compensation shall be paid unless the employee demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the following conditions apply:
Applied to assess post-termination defense and exceptions.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ18016076 · 2026-08-31 · San Francisco District Office§ 3600
Determinative passage · p.11I deferred the issue of earnings and set the matter for status conference regarding the earnings issue; therefore, I did not rule on the issue of earnings. As such, the rate of permanent disability indemnity and attorney’s fees were not yet calculated or awarded. 3. Contentions on reconsideration. In its petition for reconsideration, defendant contends this WCJ erred in relying on the reporting of QME Dr. Fields Brewer regarding compensability of the cervical spine and left shoulder, and WPI opinions. Defendant contends that the WPIs assigned by the QME are not substantial evidence and should not be utilized in determining applicant’s permanent disability. DISCUSSION 1. Compensability of cervical spine and left shoulder Applicant bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a); 3202.5.) It is sufficient to show that work was a contributing cause of the injury.
Applied to compensability of cervical spine and left shoulder injuries
Official decision · page 11 → - ADJ20868523 · 2026-08-17 · Oakland District Office§ 3600
Determinative passage · p.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.
The WCJ and Appeals Board applied this standard to determine compensability of injury to right elbow, wrist, and hand.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ12129088 · 2026-08-04 · Marina del Rey District Office§ 3600
Determinative passage · p.8III. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: An employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297–298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a), 3202.5.) As relevant here, section 3208.3(b) provides:
Applied to the burden of proof for injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
Official decision · page 8 → - ADJ13520237 · 2026-07-28 · Los Angeles District Office§ 3600
Determinative passage · p.163. Applicant’s claim for benefits is not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10).
Defendant failed to meet burden as date of injury is after termination.
Official decision · page 16 → - ADJ19294102 · 2026-07-20 · Van Nuys District Office§ 3600
Determinative passage · p.5233; Hernandez v. Chavez Roofing, Inc. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1092 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rinaldi, supra.) Here, defendant argued that the subcontractor agreement was applicable, but did not offer any evidence that applicant was insured for workers’ compensation, and thus, applicant is also an employee on that basis. III. Section 3600(a) provides for liability for injuries sustained “arising out of and in the course of the employment.” An employer is liable for workers’ compensation benefits “without regard to negligence.” (Lab. Code, § 3600(a).) Whether an employee’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment is generally a question of fact to be determined in light of the particular circumstances of the case. (Wright v. Beverly Fabrics (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 346, 353 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 51].) Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Applicant testified that, while working for defendant fixing the metal arm at the top of a broken door, a screw from the metal part fell and struck him in the eye.
Applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment, so employer is liable.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ9360946 · 2026-07-15 · San Francisco District Office§ 3600
Determinative passage · p.4(Opinion on Decision, August 22, 2022, pp. 4 – 13.) DISCUSSION When applicant claims a physical injury, applicant has the initial burden of proving industrial causation by showing the employment was a contributing cause. (South Coast Framing v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302; Lab. Code 1, § 5705.) Applicant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an injury occurred AOE/COE. (§§ 3202.5; 3600(a).) The requirement of Labor Code section 3600 is twofold. On the one hand, the injury must occur in the course of the employment. This concept ordinarily refers to the time, place, and circumstances under which the injury occurs. On the other hand, the statute requires that an injury arise out of the employment. It has long been settled that for an injury to arise out of the employment it must occur by reason
The WCJ and Appeals Board applied these standards to assess injury and causation
Official decision · page 4 →
All 156 decisions naming § 3600 →
Also on this
Unofficial guide — not legal advice. The statute is the state’s text. The quotes are litigated applications, not a prediction.
About California Labor Code § 3600
What is California Labor Code § 3600?
Labor Code § 3600 sits in CHAPTER 3. Conditions of Compensation Liability [3600 - 3605]. The statute on this page begins: (a) Liability for the compensation provided by this division, in lieu of any other liability whatsoever to any person except as otherwise. The official display is on LegInfo; this is a reprint.
Did WCAB panels apply Labor Code § 3600 in this corpus?
This corpus has 156 released decisions whose extracted legal standards named § 3600. Quotes and PDFs are on this page. That is not every case in California that ever cited the section.