What the panel ordered
The WCAB rescinded the April 11, 2022 Findings and Order and substituted a new Findings and Order reflecting that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment in the form of coronary artery disease and is entitled to the heart trouble presumption under Labor Code section 3212.2. All other issues were deferred.p. 13
Applicant seeks reconsideration of a Findings and Order issued on April 11, 2022, which held that the heart trouble presumption under Labor Code section 3212.2 did not apply because applicant did not engage in custodial duties. The WCJ deferred issues of causation, need for treatment, and temporary disability. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues and admitted additional evidence including the applicant's deposition transcript.
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 WCAB found that applicant did have custodial duties as a supervising registered nurse II and III, supported by applicant's trial and deposition testimony and Dr. Bellinger's reports, thus qualifying for the heart trouble presumption under section 3212.2.
From the decision · page 11Based upon the foregoing trial testimony, we believe that applicant did in fact have custodial duties during her employment with defendant. As outlined above, applicant had oversight of outpatient services and the inpatient mental health unit and was responsible for “conflict resolution” between patients and providers. She was also responsible for checking inmates in and out, medically restraining them if necessary, supervising porters (i.e. inmate workers), and providing corrective action. She noted that the position of supervising registered nurse II is a “safety position” as she was required to work in close and frequent contact with inmates with potential risk to herself and others. Lastly, she confirmed, as indicated by Dr.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant had custodial duties as a supervising registered nurse II and III, including oversight of inmates and porters, and was not always in the direct presence of correctional officers during inmate care.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact established eligibility for the heart trouble presumption under Labor Code section 3212.2, which was the basis for the WCAB's decision to rescind the prior Findings and Order and grant benefits.
From the decision · page 11Based upon the foregoing trial testimony, we believe that applicant did in fact have custodial duties during her employment with defendant. As outlined above, applicant had oversight of outpatient services and the inpatient mental health unit and was responsible for “conflict resolution” between patients and providers. She was also responsible for checking inmates in and out, medically restraining them if necessary, supervising porters (i.e. inmate workers), and providing corrective action. She noted that the position of supervising registered nurse II is a “safety position” as she was required to work in close and frequent contact with inmates with potential risk to herself and others. Lastly, she confirmed, as indicated by Dr.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Dr. Bellinger opined that applicant had heart trouble in the form of coronary artery disease manifesting on September 29, 2019, and that if the trier of fact found applicant had custodial duties, the coronary artery disease would be apportioned 100% industrial.
Dr. Bellinger's opinion was based on thorough examination and review of medical history and records, and he deferred the custodial duties issue to the trier of fact.
From the decision · page 13opinion, not merely his or her conclusions. (citation.)” “A medical report which lacks a relevant factual basis cannot rise to a higher level than its own inadequate premises. Such reports do not constitute substantial evidence to support a denial of benefits. (citation.)” (Kyle v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (City and County of San Francisco) (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 614, 621.) As noted above, in his report dated August 13, 2021, Dr. Bellinger determined that “heart trouble in the form of coronary artery disease manifested on September 29, 2019, for which [applicant] presented to Salinas Memorial Hospital with the onset of throat and upper chest tightness of one-week duration.” (Joint Exhibit 1, p. 3.) This opinion was based upon his medical expertise as well as a thorough examination and a review of applicant’s medical history including relevant medical records. Having determined the existence of “heart trouble,” the sole question remaining was whether applicant had custodial duties, as required under section 3212.2.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3212.2
Labor Code section 3212.2 heart trouble presumption
The presumption applies if the applicant has custodial duties as defined under the statute, entitling the applicant to benefits for heart trouble arising out of employment.
From the decision · page 4(b) The compensation which is awarded for such heart trouble shall include full hospital, surgical, medical treatment, disability indemnity, and death benefits, as provided by the workmen's compensation laws of this state.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's trial and deposition testimony describing her supervisory and custodial duties over inmates, including oversight of porters and inmates in clinic settings, and the presence or absence of correctional officers during inmate care.
From the decision · page 11Based upon the foregoing trial testimony, we believe that applicant did in fact have custodial duties during her employment with defendant. As outlined above, applicant had oversight of outpatient services and the inpatient mental health unit and was responsible for “conflict resolution” between patients and providers. She was also responsible for checking inmates in and out, medically restraining them if necessary, supervising porters (i.e. inmate workers), and providing corrective action. She noted that the position of supervising registered nurse II is a “safety position” as she was required to work in close and frequent contact with inmates with potential risk to herself and others. Lastly, she confirmed, as indicated by Dr.
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.