An applicant’s claim can be barred if they are guilty of a criminal charge that was punishable by a “fine or imprisonment in the county jail,” according to a 2022 panel decision interpreting Labor Code section 3600(a)(8).
The Appeals Board applied LC 3600(a)(8) to bar a trucker’s workers’ compensation claim, which he filed after sustaining injuries during a traffic stop on the Arizona side of the Arizona/California border. The name of the case is Christopher Johnson v. Lexmar Distribution dba LDI Trucking, CCMSI, ADJ14203968, 4/8/22. Click here to read the decision.
FACTS
Christopher Johnson was injured on 1/3/21 after he was pulled over for an illegal U-turn by Arizona State Police. As the officers sought to ask him questions, he told them that he did not have to comply with their requests because he is a United States citizen and that they work for him. Applicant said that the stop was unlawful, and felt that he had no duty to comply with the officers’ requests.
The officers forcefully removed him from the vehicle and took him to jail. During the arrest, the applicant was slammed to the ground. He filed a claim at the Anaheim WCAB.
TRIAL LEVEL
At trial, the court reviewed the dashcam video and noted that the applicant was argumentative with police.
“It shows the applicant arguing with the officers, refusing to identify himself, provide his drivers license, registration or insurance cards,” trial Judge Alan Skelly wrote in the Joint Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration. “He was argumentative with the officers and refused to comply with any of their instructions or orders. He was forcibly removed from the cab of the semi-truck and pulled to the ground.”
The judge ruled out the initial aggressor defense after noting that the video proved that the applicant didn’t threaten the officers.
Next, Judge Skelly compared the medical reports with the video, and determined that the applicant was injured when the police threw him to the ground.
However, the applicant was apparently dishonest when he denied that there were any criminal charges or convictions stemming from the incident. Skelly noted that the applicant “pled out on two of the five charges against him,” both of which were misdemeanors. For the purposes of this decision, it was notable that the applicant had plead guilty to an Arizona statute that says a person has to comply with the lawful order of a police officer who has the authority to direct traffic.
The defendant’s stance was that the claim should be barred by LC 3600(a)(8). Applicant disagreed, and argued that the defense should only prevail if applicant was convicted of a felony.
Judge Skelly rejected applicant’s contention, and ruled that LC 3600(a)(8) can apply to either a felony or a misdemeanor.
“As set forth in the statute, it states a claim is not compensable if it is ‘caused by the commission of a felony, or a crime which is punishable as specified in subdivision (b) of Section 17 of the Penal Code, by the injured employee, for which he or she has been convicted,’” the judge wrote. “Penal Code 17(b) is a separate and distinct charging offense. It is not a ‘wobbler’ as characterized by the applicant’s attorney or that it is a felony pled down to a misdemeanor.”
To help support this point, Skelly then cited Penal Code 17(b)’s language, which states:
“When a crime is punishable, in the discretion of the court, either by imprisonment in the state prison or imprisonment in a county jail under the provisions of subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by fine or imprisonment in the county jail, it is a misdemeanor for all purposes …”
Next, Judge Skelly determined that the applicant’s own unreasonable behavior was the main contributing factor to his injuries. Had he simply complied with the officers’ requests, he would have probably just received a ticket and allowed to continue on his way. Instead, the applicant refused to answer the officers’ questions, which led him to be hauled off to jail.
With that in mind, Judge Skelly ruled that LC 3600(a)(8) barred applicant’s claim. The applicant filed a petition for reconsideration.
RECONSIDERATION
The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed Skelly’s opinion, citing some of the same statutory language that the trial judge had cited.
“Applicant fails to consider that he pled guilty to a crime that was punishable by a ‘fine or imprisionment in the county jail’ as specified in Penal Code, section 17(b),” WCAB Commissioner Craig Snellings wrote in the panel decision. “Accordingly, section 3600(a)(8) applies and applicant’s rights to workers’ compensation is barred.”
Commissioner Marguerite Sweeney and WCAB Chair Katherine Zalewski both concurred with the decision.
TAKEAWAYS
There are some good takeaways from this panel decision. They are:
- LC 3600(a)(8) is a viable defense in situations where an applicant’s criminal acts caused their injuries.
- The defendant’s ability to access the truck’s video and audio made the defense in this particular case possible. Also, the defendant’s use of court records from Quartzsite Justice Court played a vital role in this defense, as they showed what charges applicant had plead out to. Had defendant not presented the audio, video, and court records, the defense could have very likely failed.
- Your humble blogger initially was tempted to call this a “wobbler” statute, but as Judge Skelly clarified – Penal Code 17(b) applies to both felonies and misdemeanors. It does not apply only to felonies. Therefore it is not a “wobbler” statute.
- Judge Skelly’s Joint Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration was crystal clear and well-written. It left no ambiguities for the WCAB to consider, and cited, analyzed, and explained the applicable statutes in sufficient detail.
CONCLUSION
If you find yourself defending a claim where an applicant’s own criminal acts caused their injuries, this panel decision is an excellent guidepost on how to present a LC 3600(a)(8) defense.
Got a question about workers’ compensation defense issues or pending legislation? Feel free to contact John P. Kamin. Mr. Kamin is a workers’ compensation defense attorney and partner at Bradford & Barthel’s Woodland Hills location, where he monitors the recent legislative affairs as the firm’s Director of the Editorial Board. Mr. Kamin previously worked as a journalist for WorkCompCentral, where he reported on work-related injuries in all 50 states. Please feel free to contact John at jkamin@bradfordbarthel.com or at (818) 654-0411.
Viewing this website does not form an attorney/client relationship between you and Bradford & Barthel, LLP or any of its attorneys. This website is for informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. This document is not a substitute for legal advice and may not address every factual scenario. If you have a legal question, we encourage you to contact your favorite Bradford & Barthel, LLP attorney to discuss the legal issues applicable to your unique case. No website is entirely secure, so please be cautious with information provided through the contact form or email. Do not assume confidentiality exists in anything you send through this website or email, until an attorney/client relationship is formed.