An applicant’s claim can be barred if he is guilty of a criminal charge that is punishable by a “fine or imprisonment in the county jail,” according to a 2022 panel decision interpreting Labor Code Section 3600(a)(8).

John P. Kamin

The Workers' Compensation 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.

Facts

Christopher Johnson was injured on Jan. 3, 2021, 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

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 driver's 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, 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 pleaded 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 pleaded 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 prevail only if applicant was convicted of a felony.

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 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, 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, Skelly ruled that LC 3600(a)(8) barred applicant’s claim. The applicant filed a petition for reconsideration.

Reconsideration

The WCAB 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 imprisonment 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 his injuries.
• The defendant’s ability to access the truck’s video and audio made the defense in this case possible. Also, the defendant’s use of records from Quartzsite Justice Court played a vital role in this defense, as they showed what charges applicant had pleaded out to. Had defendant not presented the audio, video and court records, the defense could have very likely failed.
• I initially was tempted to call this a “wobbler” statute, but as 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.
• 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 it cited, analyzed and explained the applicable statutes in sufficient detail.

Conclusion

If you find yourself defending a claim where an applicant’s criminal acts caused his injuries, this panel decision is an excellent guidepost on how to present an LC 3600(a)(8) defense.

John P. Kamin is a workers’ compensation defense attorney and equity partner at Bradford & Barthel’s Woodland Hills location. He is WorkCompCentral's former legal editor. This entry from Bradford & Barthel's blog appears with permission.