Michael Coyer, vs. County Of San Bernardino, Permissibly Self-insured,

In this case, the applicant, Michael Coyer, sought reconsideration of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that he did not sustain an industrial injury while employed by the County of San Bernardino as a firefighter. The Board denied the reconsideration, concluding that Coyer's injury did not arise out of the employment because he was attempting to protect his own roof, a personal undertaking, without seeking departmental authorization or assistance and was not, therefore, performing his responsibilities as a firefighter at the time that he sustained the injury.

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, permissibly self-insured, MICHAEL COYER, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMICHAEL COYER, Applicant,vs.COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,permissibly self-insured, Defendant.Case No. ADJ3715225 (SBR 0341276)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration of January 6, 2009, wherein we reversed the September 17, 2008 Findings of Fact, in which the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained an industrial injury1 to his back and spinal cord on January 25, 2008, while employed by defendant as a firefighter, as we concluded that applicant’s injury did not arise out of the employment because he was attempting, while on paid administrative leave from work, to protect his own roof, a personal undertaking, without seeking departmental authorization or assistance and was not, therefore, performing his responsibilities as a firefighter at the time that he sustained the injury.            Applicant contends that his injury did arise out of the employment and that we erred in concluding otherwise, arguing that we “miss-perceived” (sic) the effect of Labor Code section 3600.4 on this matter.            Defendant did not file an answer to applicant’s petition for reconsideration.            We have considered the allegations made in the petition for reconsideration.            Based on our review of the record and for the reasons previously stated in the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration of January 6, 2009, which we incorporate, we will deny reconsideration. 1Applicant, inexplicably, listed three additional case numbers in the caption of his petition for reconsideration. Those cacases were not involved in our January 6, 2009 decision and, therefore, we take no action with regard to them. ,             For the foregoing reasons,            IT IS ORDERED that reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration of Janu

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.