Based on a common-sense viewpoint of the average person in society test, do you believe that ...

Students may argue this both ways. The employer in this case vigorously objected to the WCAB's decision. The employer would argue that workers' compensation laws are not supposed to be state welfare programs or group disability programs, nor are they supposed to be general health care insurance programs. If individuals want such protection they must purchase it themselves or the state or federal government should pass such laws. But the claimant did not purchase such insurance and no state or federal laws have been enacted providing such benefits. The company would point out that drinking on the job is against company rules, and it cannot be held responsible if an employee becomes an alcoholic by violating clear company rules.
The WCAB believed to the contrary that the claimant's alcoholism and resulting disability were compensable under the workers' compensation act, because it believed that the disease was aggravated and accelerated by the employment thereby resulting in the disability. An employee need not actually drink the beverage on the job for the aggravation to occur. The consistent passive inhalation of fumes during working hours over the years could provide the aggravation and lead to the disability.