City of Los Angeles, Permissibly Self-Insured Basil Perkins WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABASIL PERKINS, Applicant,vs.CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ2423806 (LAO 0883885)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION On April 22, 2010, we granted reconsideration of the February 11, 2010 Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration and issued a Notice of Intention to Admit Evidence. Thereafter, applicant provided a March 18, 2010 security bulletin as a proposed exhibit and defendant did not object to its admission into evidence. We hereby admit the March 18, 2010 security bulletin into evidence as “Appeals Board Exhibit X” and issue our decision. In his petition for reconsideration, applicant contends that the Appeals Board erred in finding that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury, arguing that the applicant was denied due process as the board failed to consider applicant’s answer to defendant’s petition for reconsideration. Applicant also argues that he had permission to be in his employer’s vehicle, that he did not violate his employer’s policies or procedures, that his injury is compensable under the positional risk doctrine and the special risk doctrine, and that the court can infer that the assault was motivated by employment. After filing his petition for reconsideration, applicant filed a “petition to supplement the record on reconsideration” requesting that a March 18, 2010 security bulletin be entered into evidence. For the reasons discussed both below and in our decision of February 11, 2010, which we adopt and incorporate by reference, we will affirm our February 11, 2010 decision. , We have reviewed and carefully considered applicant’s answer to defendant’s petition for reconsideration, applicant’s petition for reconsideration, and the security bulletin. The March 18, 2010 bulletin describes tactics u
