Richard E. Knudsen, vs. City Of Beverly Hills, Permissibly Self- Insured,

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration of May 27, 2009, which found that the injury applicant sustained to his left shoulder while employed by the City of Beverly Hills as a police officer was an industrial injury and compensable. The Board found that it was objectively reasonable for the applicant to subjectively believe that working out was a reasonable expectancy of the employment.

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, permissibly self- insured, RICHARD E. KNUDSEN, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIARICHARD E. KNUDSEN, Applicant,CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, permissibly self-insured, Defendant.Case No. ADJ1543782 (VNO 0540728)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration of May 27, 2009, wherein we granted reconsideration of the Findings and Order of March 10, 2009. In that decision, the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found that the injury applicant sustained to his left shoulder on September 12, 2006, while employed by defendant as a police officer, was not an industrial injury because the injurious activity, exercising in the police station gym during his off-duty hours, was not a “reasonable expectancy” of the employment. Thus, the WCJ ordered that applicant “take nothing” on his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.            As our decision after reconsideration, we reversed the March 10, 2009 Findings and Order, as we found applicant’s left shoulder injury to be industrial and compensable because, in light of the particular circumstances of this matter, it was objectively reasonable for applicant to subjectively believe that working out was a reasonable expectancy of the employment.            Defendant contends that we erred in reversing the Findings and Order and that we should reinstate it.            Applicant filed an answer to the petition for reconsideration,***            We have considered the allegations made in the petition for reconsideration and answer , thereto.            Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated in the Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration of May 27, 2009, which we incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ,             For the foregoing reasons,   

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

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

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.