Kern Village Assisted Living; State Compensation Insurance Fund Karen Murray WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIACase No. ADJ7748945(Bakersfield District Office)OPINION AND ORDERDENYING RECONSIDERATIONKAREN MURRAY,Applicant, vs.KERN VILLAGE ASSISTED LIVING; STATECOMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,Defendants. Applicant, acting on her own behalf, seeks reconsideration of the November 30, 2012 Findings of Fact & Orders issued by-the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her neck and bilateral shoulders while employed as a caregiver on February 10, 2011. The WCJ further found that applicant’s claim is excluded from compensation as a post-termination claim pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3600(a)(10). The WCJ ordered applicant to take nothing. Applicant appears to contend that the WCJ erred in failing to find her injury compensable. Defendant filed an Answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed by the WCJ in his Report, which we adopt and incorporate herein, and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny reconsideration. With regard to the issue of injury AOE/COE, the injured worker bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his or her injury was sustained in the course of employment. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, Lundberg v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (1968) 69 Cal.2d 436, 439 [33 1 All further statutory references are to the Labor Code, unless otherwise noted. , Cal.Comp.Cases 565].) Moreover, the decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §5903; LeVesque v. Worlknen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].)
