ADJ11349951 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the Finding & Award issued by the WCJ on August 22, 2021.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact & Award issued by the WCJ on August 22, 2021, which found injury arising out of and in the course of employment to applicant's head on March 25, 2018.

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 prevailedhead

Applicant struck her head at work and defendant accepted liability for the head injury, thus applicant met burden to show injury AOE/COE. Defendant's challenge to injury AOE/COE was rejected due to lack of specific evidence against applicant's credibility.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact & Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 22, 2021. By the F&A, the WCJ found in relevant part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her head while employed by the defendant on March 25, 2018 as a janitor. She further found that applicant's primary treating physician is Tariq Mirza, M.D., and that the injury caused the need for further medical treatment.

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code section 5402

Presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402(b)(1)

The presumption applies if liability is not rejected within 90 days after claim filing; rebuttable only by evidence discovered after 90 days.

From the decision · page 3Section 5402(b)(1) states that: If liability is not rejected within 90 days after the date the claim form is filed under Section 5401, the injury shall be presumed compensable under this division. The presumption of this subdivision is rebuttable only by evidence discovered subsequent to the 90-day period.

South Coast Framing v. WCAB (Clark) (2015) 80 Cal Comp Cases 489

Burden of proof for industrial injury is preponderance of evidence, not scientific certainty.

Employment must be a contributing cause without which injury would not have occurred; burden met by applicant striking head at work.

From the decision · page 4*** In the case of South Coast Framing v. WCAB (Clark),) (2015) 80 Cal Comp Cases 489, the California Supreme Court stated, "All that is required [to prove industrial injury] is that the employment be one of the contributing causes without which the injury would not have occurred." Emphasis added. As discussed above, applicant's employment as a janitor is not in dispute. Nor does it appear that anyone, for the past 3 years has disputed applicant's mechanism of industrial injury to her head. She slipped while cleaning the bathroom, hit her head on the stall door, fell backwards and then hit her head for a second time, this time on the toilet, after which she lost consciousness. As explained above, all parties, including defendant, stipulate that this industrial injury to applicant's head occurred at the workplace. Defendants would now like to avoid liability for this claim by casting doubt on applicant's credibility, but defendant has failed to list with specificity what statements have been made by applicant that are not credible. (Opinion, p. 5.)

ADJ11349951 · March 19, 2024

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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page