What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted for the limited purpose of amending the employer finding; denial of injury AOE/COE otherwise affirmed.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order denying injury AOE/COE; WCAB granted reconsideration to amend the employer finding but otherwise affirmed denial.
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/COEDefendant prevailedright ankle
Applicant failed to prove that the injury occurred on premises owned or controlled by his employer; the property was owned by a separate entity and not controlled by Arcata Forest Products.
From the decision · page 5In summary, applicant asks us to extend the premises line rule to circumstances where he has offered no evidence that he suffered an injury at a time that the employer-employee relationship existed. Applicant simply did not present sufficient evidence that he injured himself on premises controlled or owned by his employer, and we decline to extend the premises line rule to the facts of this case.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.