ADJ16695855 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Defendant filed a timely verified petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Award.

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.

Penalties under Labor Code §5814Applicant prevailed

The court found defendant's refusal to pay §5710 fees was not based on credible fraud evidence and imposed costs and sanctions accordingly.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedneck · upper back · left shoulder · chest

The court found credible testimony and medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE and rejected defendant's contrary video evidence and fraud claim.

From the decision · page 4II FACTS the applicant testified that on July 22, 2022, she was performing her duties tagging and pricing clothing.1 At the moment of the incident, she was tagging garments, approximately 6 to 8 inches away from the clothing rack. She was looking down, as she had to be careful with the pricing gun to avoid the needle going into her hand. Suddenly, the clothing rack was pushed onto her and was on top of her. She "went into the mutt, [which is a wire cage that holds clothing], and then I don't know, I just started holding my head because I was really surprised at all this." She loudly2 announced, "Were you trying to kill me?" She told those present that she had rods in her back and that she was going to go to the hospital. 3 She then left for Kaiser. The clothing rack contacted her body, striking her chest around the top of her rib cage. This caused her to go backwards, and her neck, upper back and left shoulder contacted the mutt behind her.4 the applicant's testimony as to these points was credible, and unrebutted. Defendant has denied applicant's claim of injury and has suggested that the claim is fraudulent.

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant testified credibly about being struck by a clothing rack and going backwards into a mutt, supported by medical evaluations.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This credible testimony and medical evidence established injury AOE/COE, favoring applicant.

From the decision · page 4II FACTS the applicant testified that on July 22, 2022, she was performing her duties tagging and pricing clothing.1 At the moment of the incident, she was tagging garments, approximately 6 to 8 inches away from the clothing rack. She was looking down, as she had to be careful with the pricing gun to avoid the needle going into her hand. Suddenly, the clothing rack was pushed onto her and was on top of her. She "went into the mutt, [which is a wire cage that holds clothing], and then I don't know, I just started holding my head because I was really surprised at all this." She loudly2 announced, "Were you trying to kill me?" She told those present that she had rods in her back and that she was going to go to the hospital. 3 She then left for Kaiser. The clothing rack contacted her body, striking her chest around the top of her rib cage. This caused her to go backwards, and her neck, upper back and left shoulder contacted the mutt behind her.4 the applicant's testimony as to these points was credible, and unrebutted. Defendant has denied applicant's claim of injury and has suggested that the claim is fraudulent.

Defendant's surveillance video did not show the injurious incident and was contradicted by defendant's own witness testimony.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The video evidence was insufficient to rebut applicant's injury claim, favoring applicant.

Applicant immediately reported injury and sought medical treatment within hours, corroborating injury claim.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Prompt reporting and medical attention supported the credibility of the injury claim, favoring applicant.

From the decision · page 6While it is true that the physicians have provided accounts that offer slight variations as to the exact events that transpired, all accounts, including applicant's own testimony, consistently describe the applicant as being struck by a clothing rack and moving backwards as a result. The evaluating physicians note12 objective physical findings on examination. Moreover, applicant's behavior in the immediate aftermath of the incident corroborates her testimony that the incident was injurious. Applicant immediately reported13 her injury and sought medical14 attention within 2 hours of the alleged incident. Especially in light of the fact that the incident occurred suddenly, while applicant's head was down, the Court does not find these variations to constitute inconsistencies that call applicant's credibility into question.

Defendant refused to pay §5710 attorney fees without credible evidence of fraud or deceit by applicant.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Lack of credible fraud evidence made defendant's refusal improper, supporting imposition of costs and sanctions favoring applicant.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's credible testimony and consistent medical evaluations supported injury AOE/COE.

From the decision · page 4II FACTS the applicant testified that on July 22, 2022, she was performing her duties tagging and pricing clothing.1 At the moment of the incident, she was tagging garments, approximately 6 to 8 inches away from the clothing rack. She was looking down, as she had to be careful with the pricing gun to avoid the needle going into her hand. Suddenly, the clothing rack was pushed onto her and was on top of her. She "went into the mutt, [which is a wire cage that holds clothing], and then I don't know, I just started holding my head because I was really surprised at all this." She loudly2 announced, "Were you trying to kill me?" She told those present that she had rods in her back and that she was going to go to the hospital. 3 She then left for Kaiser. The clothing rack contacted her body, striking her chest around the top of her rib cage. This caused her to go backwards, and her neck, upper back and left shoulder contacted the mutt behind her.4 the applicant's testimony as to these points was credible, and unrebutted. Defendant has denied applicant's claim of injury and has suggested that the claim is fraudulent.

objective testingfavours Applicant prevailed

Defendant's video evidence did not show the injurious incident and was contradicted by witness testimony.

activities of daily livingfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's immediate reporting and seeking medical attention corroborated injury claim.

From the decision · page 6While it is true that the physicians have provided accounts that offer slight variations as to the exact events that transpired, all accounts, including applicant's own testimony, consistently describe the applicant as being struck by a clothing rack and moving backwards as a result. The evaluating physicians note12 objective physical findings on examination. Moreover, applicant's behavior in the immediate aftermath of the incident corroborates her testimony that the incident was injurious. Applicant immediately reported13 her injury and sought medical14 attention within 2 hours of the alleged incident. Especially in light of the fact that the incident occurred suddenly, while applicant's head was down, the Court does not find these variations to constitute inconsistencies that call applicant's credibility into question.

ADJ16695855 · January 12, 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

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page