ADJ1829851 · April 29, 2025

The WCJ and WCAB found that applicant was acting within the course of employment by attempting to retrieve the employer's stolen vehicle for the employer's benefit, and that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment despite defendant's argument that the applicant's final actions were an unauthorized departure from employment.

From the decision · page 9Accordingly, applicant was acting within the course of his employment by attempting to retrieve the employer's vehicle for his employer's benefit. Therefore, applicant's resulting injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and is compensable. (Williams, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d at pp. 940-941; Westbrooks, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at pp. 253-254.) We therefore affirm the WCJ's decision and deny reconsideration.

Applicant was attempting to retrieve the employer's stolen vehicle for the employer's benefit at the time of injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, supporting compensability.

From the decision · page 9Accordingly, applicant was acting within the course of his employment by attempting to retrieve the employer's vehicle for his employer's benefit. Therefore, applicant's resulting injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and is compensable. (Williams, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d at pp. 940-941; Westbrooks, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at pp. 253-254.) We therefore affirm the WCJ's decision and deny reconsideration.

Applicant did not intend to cause damage and was passively blocking the stolen vehicle; the thief rammed applicant's vehicle causing injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This showed the applicant's actions were within the course of employment and not an unauthorized departure.

From the decision · page 6(Joint Exhibits 103 and 104.)... In my view, it is clear from the evidence that the Applicant tried to passively block the stolen vehicle by placing his own truck in front of the stolen truck when it was stopped at an intersection. He did not ram or attempt to ram or collide with the vehicle. It was the thief who intentionally rammed the Applicant in his truck, and pushed it through the intersection, again fleeing the scene. The Applicant did not seek or intend to cause damage to one or both vehicles, which I think is an important distinction, and I am not persuaded that when he tried to obstruct the stopped stolen truck at the intersection that he somehow, at that last second stepped outside the course or scope of his employment as argued by the defendant.

Found injury to cervical and lumbar spine for the date of injury, with temporary work restrictions deferred to the PTP.

From the decision · page 4Applicant submitted a DWC-1 claim form the same day alleging work related injuries. (Joint 106.) The claim was denied by LWP in a notice dated September 27, 2023, on the basis the injury was sustained outside the course of employment and "was not proximately caused by the employment." (Joint 105.) Initial medical treatment, before the denial, was at Kaiser Occupational on September 8, 2023, for neck and back complaints. Although the claim was later denied (Joint 105), as a practical matter, the Applicant continued to receive medical treatment for his neck and low back, because he had existing and accepted prior workers' compensation claims to those body parts for his earlier injuries on March 4, 2021 and April 1, 2019. (See Stipulation No. 4 in MOH at p. 2.) Eventually, Applicant was eventually evaluated by pain management QME, Jordan Newmark, M.D., who issued a report dated December 8, 2023, which addresses 3 different dates of injury, including the one in this case. (Joint 101.) At the time of this exam, the Applicant was not working, evidently because the

Westbrooks v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 249

An injury arises out of and in the course of employment if the employee's actions are within the scope of expected service, even if contrary to employer policies.

The WCJ and WCAB applied this standard to find the applicant's actions compensable despite policy violations.

From the decision · page 6Westbrooks notes that the course of employment is defined by "such service as the employee is expected to render." (Westbrooks at p. 159) ([Opinion] at pp. 8-9.) To me, this brings in the expectations and beliefs of the Applicant into consideration. It appears clear to me that the Applicant in this case was not chasing the thief as part of a personal agenda and/or for reasons unrelated to his employment, but rather because he felt a duty and/or obligation in an effort to safeguard and/or protect and/or to help return the city's stolen property. That motivation was noted by Chief Luby in his recommendation after the Skelly hearing to impose less than the requested discipline sought by the city, i.e. a suspension of 7 days without pay rather than 14.

Labor Code section 3202

Liberal interpretation of workers' compensation law to benefit injured workers.

The WCJ and WCAB applied this statute to interpret the course of employment broadly in favor of the applicant.

From the decision · page 6..cases, and that the defendant's efforts to distinguish them legally or factually fall flat. To the extent that a determination regarding this AOE/COE analysis at some point requires a determination of whether a certain line was crossed, I also considered the directives of liberal interpretation and application of workers' compensation law, as reflected in Labor Code section 3202, and cases such as Dimmig v. Workman's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 860, 866-867, 36 Cal.Comp.Cases 621, and Lujan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals. Bd. (1985) 175 Cal. App. 3d 212, 216-217, 50 Cal.Comp.Cases 693.

Applicant's motivation to retrieve employer's stolen vehicle was reasonable and related to his employment duties.

From the decision · page 5perception of his duty to retrieve the truck was "reasonable." (Petition for Reconsideration, p. 6.)

Applicant did not intend to cause damage and was passively blocking the stolen vehicle; the thief rammed applicant's vehicle causing injury.

From the decision · page 6(Joint Exhibits 103 and 104.)... In my view, it is clear from the evidence that the Applicant tried to passively block the stolen vehicle by placing his own truck in front of the stolen truck when it was stopped at an intersection. He did not ram or attempt to ram or collide with the vehicle. It was the thief who intentionally rammed the Applicant in his truck, and pushed it through the intersection, again fleeing the scene. The Applicant did not seek or intend to cause damage to one or both vehicles, which I think is an important distinction, and I am not persuaded that when he tried to obstruct the stopped stolen truck at the intersection that he somehow, at that last second stepped outside the course or scope of his employment as argued by the defendant.

Applicant's conduct did not rise to wanton and reckless disregard necessary for serious and willful misconduct reduction.

From the decision · page 8On the issue of whether Applicant engaged in S&W misconduct justifying a decrease in his workers' compensation benefits pursuant to Labor Code § 4551, Defendant argued that Applicant intentionally and willfully engaged in and instigated a road rage incident that he knew or reasonably could have foreseen would lead to injuries, and that he acted in reckless disregard of the possible consequences by failing to leave the scene. According to the WCJ, however, Applicant's conduct, while perhaps lacking good judgment, did not rise to the level of wanton and reckless disregard of the possible danger necessary to establish S&W misconduct.