COA: Writ of Review Denied on Another Forceful Blow = Violence Case
Happy Monday, dear readers!
Your humble blogger brings you a rather unfortunate writ denied case this morning, that of Greenbrae Management/SCIF v. WCAB/Torres.
This is yet another in those long line of cases where the applicant prevailed on the theory that a “forceful blow” was sufficient to satisfy the “violent act” requirement of Labor Code section 4660.1.
In this case, applicant sustained an admitted injury in 2014 when he fell 20 feet from a tree he was trimming. The question was, of course, whether applicant should be entitled to increased permanent disability based on the psychiatric injury resulting as a compensable consequence from the fall.
The WCJ ruled that a fall from a tree was not a “violent act” and thus, as there does not appear to be proof that the injury was “catastrophic”, the additional psyche-based PD was barred. The WCAB reversed and the Court of Appeal has now denied review.
Your humble blogger previously articulated the argument that if a “forceful blow” was sufficient to satisfy the definition of violent act as contemplated by the labor code, then every forceful blow would be an “extraordinary” employment event, as previously defined by the Court of Appeal, so the 6 month employment rule would never work to bar a fall or being hit forcefully.
Here’s hoping that we get some contrary and binding guidance soon. The WCAB’s reasoning that this doctrine is consistent with legislative intent to limit compensable consequence psyche injuries is weak medicine for defendants, who now see everything short of a cumulative trauma being claimed as either a “violent act” because of its forceful mechanism or “catastrophic” in its effect on the injured worker.
In the meantime, your humble blogger respectfully submits that we should continue litigating these cases. A forceful blow is not a violent act – at last not according to any binding authority. If the Court of Appeal had to issue a published opinion concluding that a wet sidewalk is not “extraordinary” on a rainy day, perhaps it will also have to issue a publish opinion clarifying that a violent act, within the meaning of the Labor Code, requires a third-party with intent to do harm (or something of a quasi-criminal nature).