ADJ19575926 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration DENIED.

Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's finding of industrial injury; WCAB reviewed and denied the petition.

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/COEApplicant prevailedright leg · ribs · right knee · back · right hip

Applicant was performing a task for which he was hired, caring for the patient, while still on the employer's premises, and such activity was reasonably anticipated by the employer even though applicant had clocked out. No evidence showed applicant was acting inconsistently with his employment.

From the decision · page 7This claim is straightforward. Though applicant was no longer "on the clock," he was performing the task for which he was hired by the defendant, caring for the patient, while still on the premises to which he was assigned by the employer. It is certainly anticipated by the employer that applicant should have continued to assist the patient, who struggled with balance, with walking to bed even though he had already clocked out for his shift. In fact, no testimony was elicited as to any policies the employer may have had for caretaking, clocking out, or even staying beyond one's shift. Given the nature of the employment, the employer could not have expected that applicant

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant was still on the employer's premises and performing a task (helping the patient to bed) reasonably anticipated by the employer after clocking out.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established that the injury occurred in the course of employment and was compensable.

From the decision · page 7This claim is straightforward. Though applicant was no longer "on the clock," he was performing the task for which he was hired by the defendant, caring for the patient, while still on the premises to which he was assigned by the employer. It is certainly anticipated by the employer that applicant should have continued to assist the patient, who struggled with balance, with walking to bed even though he had already clocked out for his shift. In fact, no testimony was elicited as to any policies the employer may have had for caretaking, clocking out, or even staying beyond one's shift. Given the nature of the employment, the employer could not have expected that applicant

No evidence was presented that applicant was acting inconsistently with his employment at the time of injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported finding that the injury was industrial and not excluded by any employer policy or conduct.

From the decision · page 8Lastly, in Barragan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Barragan) (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 637 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 467], the Court of Appeal explicitly held that "there is a long line of case law establishing the rule that one need not receive actual payment of money or wages in order to be an employee for purposes of the Workers Compensation Act." (Id. at p. 649.) As outlined above, continuing to assist the patient by helping him to bed after boxing up prepared food is certainly a contemplated use of the premises whether or not applicant was "on the clock" at the time. Defendant has provided no evidence that applicant was acting in any way that was inconsistent with his employment, regardless of whether or not he was going to stay on the premises overnight.

ADJ19575926 · June 30, 2025

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