What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; April 8, 2022 Findings and Order amended to reflect that applicant's workers' compensation claim is not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(8).
Remanded by the Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with the Court's November 3, 2022 Order vacating the WCAB's July 1, 2022 decision.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold July 1, 2022, October 19, 2021.
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 concluded that the applicant's guilty plea to a misdemeanor under Arizona law is not equivalent to a felony or a crime punishable as a felony under California Penal Code section 17(b), and thus the workers' compensation claim is not barred by section 3600(a)(8).
From the decision · page 2We now further analyze the meaning of section 3600(a)(8) and whether applicant's guilty
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's guilty plea to a misdemeanor under Arizona Statute 28-1595(b) was not equivalent to a felony or a crime punishable as a felony under California Penal Code section 17(b).
Favours Applicant prevailed
This meant the workers' compensation claim was not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(8).
From the decision · page 2We now further analyze the meaning of section 3600(a)(8) and whether applicant's guilty
Video evidence showed applicant was confrontational and non-cooperative but did not threaten or make overt actions towards officers.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This undermined the causal relationship between the crime and the injury, supporting the claim not being barred.
From the decision · page 4That however is not all that is required; the defendant must also prove the crime was a contributing factor without which the injury would not have occurred.... Here the films show the applicant refused the legal orders of the Arizona Police officer. As evidenced by his arrest, the driver of a vehicle is required by law to provide identification, insurance card, and registration. The applicant refused to provide any of these documents. Instead, he became agitated and verbally confrontational with the officers. Had he complied with the orders then none of this would have occurred. His conduct and his refusal to provide his driver's license and to obey the police officers commands were the contributing factors to his injuries. Had he complied he would not have been forcefully removed from the truck and suffered his injuries. (Opinion on Decision dated April 4, 2022, pp. 7-8.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3600(a)(8)
Labor Code section 3600(a)(8) prohibits compensation where the injury was caused by the commission of a felony or a crime punishable as specified in subdivision (b) of Section 17 of the Penal Code.
The Board analyzed whether the applicant's misdemeanor plea under Arizona law equated to a felony or punishable crime under California law and concluded it did not bar compensation.
Penal Code section 17(b)
Penal Code section 17(b) allows courts to designate certain felonies as misdemeanors by imposing punishment other than state prison or by declaration after probation grant.
The Board applied this to determine that the applicant's misdemeanor plea was a re-designation from a felony and thus not barred from compensation under section 3600(a)(8).
From the decision · page 3Penal Code, section 17(b), authorizes a court to designate "wobbler" offenses to misdemeanors by imposing a punishment other than state prison or by declaration as a misdemeanor after a grant of probation. (Alvarez, supra, at p. 974.) The purpose of Penal Code, section 17(b) is to benefit the offender and encourage misdemeanor designations. (Necochea v. Superior Court (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1015-1016.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Video evidence showed the applicant was confrontational and non-cooperative but did not threaten or make overt actions towards officers, undermining the causal link between the crime and injury.
From the decision · page 4That however is not all that is required; the defendant must also prove the crime was a contributing factor without which the injury would not have occurred.... Here the films show the applicant refused the legal orders of the Arizona Police officer. As evidenced by his arrest, the driver of a vehicle is required by law to provide identification, insurance card, and registration. The applicant refused to provide any of these documents. Instead, he became agitated and verbally confrontational with the officers. Had he complied with the orders then none of this would have occurred. His conduct and his refusal to provide his driver's license and to obey the police officers commands were the contributing factors to his injuries. Had he complied he would not have been forcefully removed from the truck and suffered his injuries. (Opinion on Decision dated April 4, 2022, pp. 7-8.)
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.