ADJ9756837 · December 21, 2022

The Appeals Board found that the attack by Roberto on applicant had some connection to her work at the church, rejecting the defendant's contention that the attack was purely personal and unrelated to employment.

From the decision · page 1In the Finding of Fact of February 4, 2019, the Workers' Compensation Judge ("WCJ") found that on October 11, 2012, applicant, while employed as a housekeeper by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment.

Applicant was attacked by Roberto at the church while performing her housekeeping duties.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established the injury occurred in the course of employment, supporting compensability.

From the decision · page 3In this case, the WCJ's Report correctly points out that it is uncertain whether Roberto's attack on the applicant was based solely on some personal motivation or grievance. Whatever Roberto's motive was, we agree with the WCJ that the preponderance of evidence justifies the finding that Roberto's attack on the applicant had "some work connection," thus establishing compensability of her injuries. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.)

Applicant testified she did not know why Roberto attacked her, and there was no evidence the attack was purely personal.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This undermined defendant's argument that the attack was motivated by personal reasons, supporting compensability.

From the decision · page 4On this record, we conclude the evidence does not support a finding that Roberto's attack on the applicant was purely personal. It is reasonable to infer that Roberto came to the church to discuss with a priest what he believed was some sort of romantic relationship he had with the applicant. It also is clear that Roberto attended this church, as did the applicant, in addition to her work as a housekeeper and custodian. Applicant's testimony also establishes that although she and Roberto had gone on outings together with her two children, they were not in a romantic relationship. In fact, applicant testified that she was and still is afraid of Roberto, and it was her understanding that he hit another woman at church.

Applicant's testimony was unrebutted and credible, including that Roberto attended the church and initially sought to see a priest where applicant worked.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the finding that the attack had some connection to applicant's work, establishing compensability.

From the decision · page 4On this record, we conclude the evidence does not support a finding that Roberto's attack on the applicant was purely personal. It is reasonable to infer that Roberto came to the church to discuss with a priest what he believed was some sort of romantic relationship he had with the applicant. It also is clear that Roberto attended this church, as did the applicant, in addition to her work as a housekeeper and custodian. Applicant's testimony also establishes that although she and Roberto had gone on outings together with her two children, they were not in a romantic relationship. In fact, applicant testified that she was and still is afraid of Roberto, and it was her understanding that he hit another woman at church.

Defendant failed to rebut applicant's prima facie showing that the attack was related to work.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This led to affirming the WCJ's finding of compensability.

From the decision · page 4Based on our analysis of the facts highlighted above, in this case we are persuaded applicant made a prima facie case that Roberto's attack on her at the church arose out of employment, because the attack had some connection to applicant's work there. Defendant failed to rebut applicant's prima facie showing that Roberto's attack was related to applicant's work. Accordingly, we will affirm the WCJ's finding. However, the WCJ did not address and resolve the issue of which body parts were injured in Roberto's attack on the applicant. Therefore, we will return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings and determination of that issue by the WCJ.

California Labor Code

Labor Code section 5313

Defendant contended injury did not arise out of employment under this section; the Board found the WCJ's report cured any technical defect in satisfying this requirement.

From the decision · page 1Applicant filed an answer. We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the WCJ's Report and Recommendation ("Report") with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below and in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will affirm the Finding of Fact of February 4, 2019. The WCJ's Report, in conjunction with our Decision After Reconsideration herein, cures any technical or alleged defect in the WCJ's failure to satisfy the requirements of Labor Code section 5313. (City of San Diego v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rutherford) (1989) 54

California Labor Code

Labor Code section 3202.5

The Board applied this section to find the attack had some work connection, establishing compensability.

From the decision · page 3In this case, the WCJ's Report correctly points out that it is uncertain whether Roberto's attack on the applicant was based solely on some personal motivation or grievance. Whatever Roberto's motive was, we agree with the WCJ that the preponderance of evidence justifies the finding that Roberto's attack on the applicant had "some work connection," thus establishing compensability of her injuries. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.)

Applicant's credible testimony that the attack had some work connection and was not purely personal.

From the decision · page 2because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the applicant, who was the only