ALLEGED FRAUD BY DEFENSE DOES NOT ABROGATE

THE EXCLUSIVITY RULE.

In Brianna Davis v. Corvel (2026 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2654) the applicant was an EMT who filed a claim for an injury to her neck, back and legs while working at Tri-City Medical Center on May 8,2018. Davis claimed the employer, claims adjuster and evaluating doctor conspired to return her to work too early, resulting in additional injuries on May 25, 2019 for which she filed a second injury claim. She then asserted the defense conspired to improperly deny her second claim and refused to divulge her injury to EDD. Davis proceeded to file a civil suit for fraud against the employer, doctors and third party administrator.

The civil case was dismissed via a general demurrer due to lack of jurisdiction under the workers' compensation exclusivity rule under Labor Code section 3200 et al. Davis appealled.

In the unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One, stated that even if the applicant's allegations were true, the "acts were a normal part of, or collateral to, the workers' compensation process", so the WCAB maintains exclusive jurisdiction to address her issues and any potential remedies.

[COMMENT: The applicant was represented by a civil litigator, which likely explains why this approach was taken, as opposed to addressing the medical reporting issues before the Board while also exploring a civil claim under FEHA]



_________________________________________________________________

TWO-PRONGED APPROACH OF THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE

In Sopher v. WCAB (2026) 54 CWCR 45 a handyman sustained a serious injury due to a fall off a roof. The trial judge determined the case was barred under the intoxication defense based on 0.32 % blood alcohol recorded at the hospital, and AME report who noted the blood alcohol indicated significant impairment.

The WCAB confirmed the defense met its burden to show intoxication at time of injury, but failed to prove that the intoxication caused the accident, in part because the judge excluded a key witness and the AME had not been given records regarding a pre-injury vertigo condition. The case was remanded back to the trial judge to develop the record as to causation.

[COMMENT: Case points to the difficulties of the intoxication defense which requires proof of intoxication and that the intoxication caused the injury. The defense undoubtedly felt the degree of intoxication was obviously the reason for applicant's fall from the roof, but the WCAB wants more before barring a significant injury case.]

WITNESS CREDIBILITY ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE AN AOE/COE RULING

In Payne v. UCLA and Los Robles Hospital (2026)(54 CWCR 30) a hospital laboratory tech filed two untimely and concurrent continuous allegations against two medical facilities. The WCJ found the applicant uncredible and issued two take-nothing decisions, without making any findings on the medical evidence.

The WCAB overturned the WCJ decisions because even if an applicant lacks credibility, a WCJ must still evaluate and explain whether the record supports or fails to support the existence of an industrial injury.

[COMMENT: The ruling is consistent with Peter Kiewit & Sons v. IAC (1965) 30 CCC 188 noting a WCJ must always evaluate and explain the medical record in any ruling on aoe/coe issues.]

HEWS NEWS

May Work Anniversaries: Attorney Regina Rabanal (18 years) and legal assistant Noah Avila (2 years).

_______________________________

Main Contributor: H. Neal Wells IV hnw@hmplc.com

Editorial Staff: Lynn P. Peterson

lpp@hmplc.com

• San Bernardino (909) 890-0403 (sbr@hmplc.com)
• Santa Ana (949) 250-1216 (ana@hmplc.com)
• Burbank (818) 265-0940 (cxr@hmplc.com)
• Calabasas (818) 348-8366 (cls@hmplc.com)

www.hmplc.com

The above is for informational purposes only, and not intended to constitute legal advice.