ADJ14033416 · July 3, 2023

The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE on March 12, 2020, from contracting COVID-19 at work, supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. Dreyfuss showing increased risk compared to the general public.

From the decision · page 4The court reviewed the evidence submitted by the parties, both documentary and testamentary. Based on the same, including, but not limited to, the testimony of the applicant, and medical reporting of Court Appointed Regular Physician Bruce J. Dreyfuss, M.D. dated February 13, 2023, and February 20, 2023, it was found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE on March 12, 2020, as a result of contracting COVID-19 and compensable sequences thereof.

Applicant met with a potentially ill individual in a small enclosed room for 15-20 minutes on March 12, 2020, at the San Jose WCAB.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This exposure was found to place applicant at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 compared to the general public, supporting industrial causation.

From the decision · page 7Dr. Dreyfuss correctly pointed out that on March 12, 2020, the date of the Mandatory Settlement Conference, could only be conducted at the San Jose board, that this location was a necessary place to conduct business, and it is considered a workplace of the applicant. (J-1, @ p. 21). Supporting this unique situation was applicant's testimony both in his deposition and at trial. Specifically, applicant testified in his deposition that he was approached by a gentleman at the San Jose WCAB on March 12, 2020, asking questions about his worker's compensation case. Applicant testified he spoke with him about 15-20 minutes in a small room. Neither wore a mask. (DEF. EX. D-5, p. 12, lines 6- 11).

Dr. Dreyfuss concluded it was reasonably medically probable that applicant contracted COVID-19 during the March 12, 2020 Mandatory Settlement Conference due to increased risk from his job as a workers' compensation attorney meeting clients in enclosed spaces.

Dr. Dreyfuss relied on applicant's history, timing of symptom onset, and the nature of applicant's work environment to conclude increased risk and causation.

From the decision · page 6supplemental report dated February 20, 2023 (J-2), the latter merely acting as an addendum to the initial report, requesting additional studies. The initial report of Dr. Dreyfuss, provided a history of the onset of applicant's symptoms on March 14, 2020, to which applicant attributed to exposure to COVID-19 at a Worker's Compensation Appeals Board two days prior on March 12, 2020. (J-1, @ p. 2).

LaTourette v. WCAB (1998) 63 CCC 253

Non-occupational diseases are generally not compensable unless the employee is subject to an increased risk compared to the general public.

The court applied this standard to determine that applicant's job as an injured workers' attorney subjected him to increased risk of contracting COVID-19 compared to the general public.

From the decision · page 5However, there are two exceptions that allow non-occupational diseases to be found industrially related. The applicable exception to the general rule of non- compensability for non-occupational diseases provides that a non-occupational disease is compensable if the employee is subject to an increased risk compared with that of the general public. (Id @ p. 259)(emphasis added). More specifically, whether applicant's work as a worker's compensation attorney representing injured workers subjected applicant to an increased risk compared with that of the general public. This is the core issue presented in this case.

Applicant's testimony about meeting a potentially ill individual in a small enclosed room for 15-20 minutes, supported by medical history and reports.

From the decision · page 7Dr. Dreyfuss correctly pointed out that on March 12, 2020, the date of the Mandatory Settlement Conference, could only be conducted at the San Jose board, that this location was a necessary place to conduct business, and it is considered a workplace of the applicant. (J-1, @ p. 21). Supporting this unique situation was applicant's testimony both in his deposition and at trial. Specifically, applicant testified in his deposition that he was approached by a gentleman at the San Jose WCAB on March 12, 2020, asking questions about his worker's compensation case. Applicant testified he spoke with him about 15-20 minutes in a small room. Neither wore a mask. (DEF. EX. D-5, p. 12, lines 6- 11).