ADJ13531096 · August 31, 2026

Applicant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant committed serious and willful misconduct causing the injury. The evidence showed defendant took reasonable steps to manage the dangerous resident and did not act with knowledge that serious injury was probable.

From the decision · page 7Because there is not support in the evidence that the removal of CABA led to the applicant's October 30, 2019 injury, there also cannot be knowledge on the part of Anthony Hodges that removal of would lead to the applicant's injury. * * * In this matter, I am not persuaded that the failure to remove Craig from Hodges Residential constitutes an intentional act with knowledge that serious injury was probable... I do not find that the mere presence of Craig in the home created an unsafe work environment. Additionally, I am persuaded that Anthony Hodges was taking reasonable steps to try to alleviate the danger posed by Craig. * * * Therefore, I do not find that the failure to remove Craig from Hodges Residential constitutes serious and willful misconduct by Hodges Residential. * * * For the reasons discussed above, I do not find that the applicant has met his burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Hodges Residential committed serious and willful misconduct in relation to the applicant’s October 30, 2019 injury. (Opinion on Decision, pp. 15-19.) It is from this F&O that applicant seeks reconsideration.

Defendant retained the aggressive resident and attempted to manage his behavior through professional interventions, medication adjustments, and behavioral therapy.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Showed defendant did not act with reckless or knowing disregard for employee safety, negating serious and willful misconduct claim.

Applicant failed to prove that removal of behavioral support team (CABA) led to the injury or that defendant had knowledge that serious injury was probable from retaining the resident.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Negated the element of knowledge required for serious and willful misconduct under Labor Code section 4553.

From the decision · page 7Because there is not support in the evidence that the removal of CABA led to the applicant's October 30, 2019 injury, there also cannot be knowledge on the part of Anthony Hodges that removal of would lead to the applicant's injury. * * * In this matter, I am not persuaded that the failure to remove Craig from Hodges Residential constitutes an intentional act with knowledge that serious injury was probable... I do not find that the mere presence of Craig in the home created an unsafe work environment. Additionally, I am persuaded that Anthony Hodges was taking reasonable steps to try to alleviate the danger posed by Craig. * * * Therefore, I do not find that the failure to remove Craig from Hodges Residential constitutes serious and willful misconduct by Hodges Residential. * * * For the reasons discussed above, I do not find that the applicant has met his burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Hodges Residential committed serious and willful misconduct in relation to the applicant’s October 30, 2019 injury. (Opinion on Decision, pp. 15-19.) It is from this F&O that applicant seeks reconsideration.

Documented the aggressive behavior of resident Craig Barksdale including rampages and assaults, supporting the context of the workplace danger.

Provided assessment and behavioral therapy recommendations for managing aggressive resident, indicating efforts to mitigate danger.

From the decision · page 22The summary also stated that CABA was in the midst of doing an assessment and would forgo a functional assessment due to the “… escalation in behaviors over the past few weeks.” (Def. Ex. C.) Jesslyn Farros, PhD of CABA stated that, “… CABA will need to be there during the problematic times in order to address the challenges when they are occurring and will need[.]” (Ibid.) That is the final line on the exhibit.

Bonner v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1023

Employer's duty to maintain a safe workplace and take reasonable steps to alleviate danger or give adequate warning to prevent injury.

Applied to assess whether defendant's conduct constituted serious and willful misconduct under Labor Code section 4553.

From the decision · page 27correct a dangerous condition, and to give an adequate warning of its existence. Here, it was Moodie's [the employer] duty to maintain a workplace free "from danger to the life, safety, or health of employees as the nature of the employment reasonably" permitted, and to utilize "any practicable method of mitigating or preventing a specific danger...." (§ 6306.)” (Bonner v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1034 [275 Cal.Rptr. 337].) However, Bonner, supra, also held that an employer is liable for contributory negligence, a lower standard than that required for serious and willful misconduct allegation in the case at issue, only where the employer “… fails to take reasonable steps either to alleviate the danger or to give an adequate warning in order to prevent injury to employees….” (Bonne v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1028.)

Credibility determination of witnesses, particularly the WCJ's assessment of demeanor and testimony, was given great weight and supported the denial of serious and willful misconduct.

From the decision · page 12Therefore, applicant has failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant’s conduct proximately caused the October 30, 2019 injury through intentional, reckless, or deliberate omission. Finally, we have given the WCJ’s credibility determination great weight because he had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Moreover, following our independent review of the record, we conclude that the record contains no evidence of sufficient substantiality to warrant rejecting the WCJ’s credibility determination. (Id. at p. 319.) Accordingly, we affirm the F&O.