Sean Vice worked as an IT Analyst for the Shasta County Office of Education. On June 4, 2025, he claimed he was injured on the job while setting up equipment for a graduation ceremony. According to Vice, a speaker stacked on top of another speaker began to fall, and as he reached behind his back to catch it, he felt a pop in his shoulder followed by sharp pain. He testified that he told two co-workers — Ashley Talladino and Cole Rumford — about the incident, then drove to seek medical treatment and called his supervisor, James Alspaugh, to report the injury en route.

The account unraveled, however, through the testimony of co-worker Talladino. She testified that on the morning of the alleged workplace incident, Vice had told her he had actually hurt his shoulder playing hockey the night before. According to Talladino, Vice said he had no sick time left, needed to see a doctor, and was considering filing a workers’ compensation claim by attributing the injury to the graduation setup — specifically, that “he was going to say he lifted a speaker up and fell possibly backwards and that his shoulder had popped.” A text message Vice sent to Talladino was admitted into evidence, in which he wrote: “Hey keep my shoulder between you and I. I’m saying I pulled it on a speaker.” Vice attempted to explain the text at trial by saying he simply did not want people to know he was hurt, and attributed the phrase “I’m saying I pulled it on a speaker” to a “fat thumb” or autocorrect error.

Workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued Findings and Order on January 5, 2026, finding that Vice did not sustain any injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The WCJ found Talladino’s testimony credible and found Vice’s testimony “not completely forthcoming.” She rejected his explanations for the text message — particularly the autocorrect defense — as not credible, especially given that he had already reported the injury to his supervisor and to Rumford by the time he claimed he wanted to keep the matter quiet.

Vice petitioned the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board for reconsideration. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Vice v. Shasta County Office of Education -ADJ21105749 (April 2026), leaving the WCJ’s findings intact.

The Board’s reasoning was brief and rested entirely on the deference owed to a trial-level credibility determination.

Credibility findings are nearly unreviewable. The Board cited the well-settled principle that in bench proceedings, the finder of fact is the sole judge of witness credibility and may believe or disbelieve any witness if there is a rational basis for doing so. It quoted Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 570, 582, which in turn drew on Davis v. Kahn (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 868, 874; and other published cases. The Board reinforced this principle in the workers’ compensation context by citing Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318–319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500], which holds that a WCJ’s credibility determinations are entitled to great weight because of the judge’s direct opportunity to observe witness demeanor.

The WCJ’s call was well within her discretion. The text message corroborated Talladino’s testimony directly. Vice’s innocent explanations for the message — that he merely wanted privacy and that autocorrect was responsible for the incriminating phrase — were undermined by the fact that he had already openly reported the injury to his supervisor and a second co-worker. The Board found no basis to disturb the WCJ’s weighing of the competing accounts and denied the petition accordingly.