ADJ11854966 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

April 21, 2020 Findings of Fact, Orders and Opinion on Decision rescinded; case returned to WCJ for further proceedings.

Petition for Reconsideration granted; prior Findings of Fact and Award (April 21, 2020) rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.

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/COERemandedback · ankle · lower extremities

The Board found that the more salient question was whether the injury was a compensable consequence of the prior industrial injury, not the applicant's employment status at the time. The record lacked sufficient evidence on the nature and circumstances of the claimed injury, requiring further development and remand to the trial level.

From the decision · page 6Here, the parties have litigated the issue of employment, submitting for decision the question of whether applicant was employed by Kelly Services at the time of his 2018 injury, which in turn was allegedly sustained pursuant to the award of medical treatment for an underlying 2007 back injury. However, we believe the more salient question is not applicant's employment status in 2018, but rather whether the alleged injury is a compensable consequence of the April 17, 2007 injury.

The rules the panel named

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

Laines v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 872

An injury sustained as a result of medical treatment occasioned by a prior industrial injury is deemed a compensable consequence injury, arising out of and in the course of employment at the time of the original injury.

Applied to determine compensability of the 2018 injury as a consequence of the 2007 injury.

From the decision · page 6Pursuant to the holding in Laines, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Weitzman, an injury sustained as a result of medical treatment occasioned by a prior industrial injury will be deemed a compensable consequence injury. It is not a separate or distinct injury, but arises out of the prior industrial injury, and occurs within the "quasi-course of employment." A compensable consequence injury thus arises out of, and in the course of applicant's employment as of the time when the industrial injury was received. (Laines v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 48 Cal.App.3d 872, 880.)

Southern California Rapid Transit Dist., Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weitzman) (1979) 23 Cal.3d 158

The concept of 'quasi-course of employment' applies to injuries occurring during activities related to a prior compensable injury, even if outside the usual time and space limits of employment.

Applied to support compensability of injuries related to medical treatment for prior injury.

From the decision · page 5[It] is not surprising that the question whether claimants' subsequent conduct is an independent intervening cause in these cases cannot be fairly determined by reference to conventional causation principles alone; it too must be determined by a test which is a combination of `course' and `arising out of' elements. Since, in a strict sense, none of the consequential injuries we are concerned with are in the course of employment, it becomes necessary to contrive a new concept, which we may for convenience call `quasi-course of employment.' By this expression is meant activities undertaken by the employee following upon his injury which, although they take place outside the time and space limits of the employment, and would not be considered employment activities for usual purposes, are nevertheless related to the employment in the sense that they are necessary or reasonable activities that would not have been undertaken but for the compensable [first] injury. (Southern California Rapid Transit Dist., Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weitzman), supra, at 165, quoting 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law (1978) § 13.11.)

ADJ11854966 · April 12, 2022

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

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page