State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Decision Date | 07 July 1982 |
Citation | 133 Cal.App.3d 643,184 Cal.Rptr. 111 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Maria Santos Vasquez De Vargas et al., Respondents. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Josefina Acevedas Macias et al., Respondents. Civ. 6926, Civ. 6927. |
Krimen, Brodie, Hershenson & DaSilva and Louis Harris, San Francisco, for petitioner.
Perez, Makasian, Williams & Moheno, Robert F. Perez and Robert Gray Williams, Fresno, for respondents.
The issue before us in this case is whether the deaths of two employees, Vargas Castellanos and Salvador Macias Vargas, who were shot in a bunkhouse arose out of and occurred in the course of their employment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denied reconsideration of the trial judge's award of compensability. Petitioner, State Compensation Insurance Fund (petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of review from the Board's decision, which we granted. The case was submitted to the trial judge on an agreed statement of facts (contained in Return to Writ of Review) which we hereby adopt:
This ends the "Agreed Statement of Facts."
The workers' compensation judge granted the decedents' survivors death benefits and funeral expenses.
Petitioner then filed petitions for reconsideration alleging that (1) the judge acted without or in excess of his powers in rendering the findings and awards, and (2) the evidence did not justify the findings of fact and awards.
The trial judge recommended that the petitions be denied. He concluded that the Vargas case was compensable for two reasons: (1) because the cause of death was not personal as between decedent and the assailants; and/or (2) because decedent by being provided a farm bunkhouse was placed in a position of danger. Likewise, the Castellanos case was found to be compensable because he was provided a farm bunkhouse and was placed in a position of danger.
Thereafter, the Board, in a two-to-one decision, denied petitioner's petition for reconsideration. In their opinion and order denying reconsideration, the majority held that there was no personal motive to kill Vargas.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. State
... ... Law (10th ed. 2005) Workers' Compensation, § 194. [183 ... Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 345, 353. fn. 11 ... ( State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1952) 38 Cal.2d ... ...
-
Fisher v. Mayfield
... ... was asked to coordinate the "flower fund" by a school building representative. The flower ... Buzzanco's father, and to have co-workers sign the sympathy card. Appellant arrived at ... compensation benefits was disallowed by the Bureau of Workers' ... The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding ... 4123.01(C); R.C. 4123.54; Fassig v. State, ex rel. Turner (1917), 95 Ohio St. 232 [116 N.E ... See, also, State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982), ... ...
-
Vaught v. State
... ... We hold the workers' compensation exclusivity rule of Labor Code1 ... Workers' Comp.App. Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 729, 732-733, 190 ... , 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 217, 951 P.2d 1184; Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1967) 247 ... 810; State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp.App. Bd. (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d ... ...
-
Williams v. Martin Marietta Energy Sys., Inc.
... ... SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant; Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation et al., Appellees ... No. 93 CA 1 ... Court of Appeals of Ohio, ... Fourth District, Pike County ... in the Ohio Workers' Compensation Fund ... On September 24, 1993, the ... See, also, State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd ... ...