What the panel ordered
Findings and Order of November 4, 2022, rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings consistent with opinion.
Petition for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued November 4, 2022, by the WCJ, granted to further study factual and legal issues; decision after reconsideration issued.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The WCJ's original decision lacked a proper Rolda analysis by the QME psychiatrist, who did not break down the categories of stress and causation as required, leaving no basis to find the injury non-industrial. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's order and remanded for further proceedings to obtain a Rolda-compliant medical opinion.
From the decision · page 5Here, the QME did not complete a Rolda analysis. The QME simply stated that predominant industrial causation existed. That is not sufficient to determine whether applicant's psychological injury is industrial and whether defendant met its burden of proof to establish substantial causation from lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. The QME must discuss each category of stress. For example, here, it appears that applicant was stressed with the changes in her workload, interactions with her supervisor, and being placed on a performance improvement plan.3 We do not suggest these are the only categories. That is a determination the QME must make and the QME must assign causation to each category of stress, which caused applicant's psychological injury.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
QME report did not provide a Rolda-compliant breakdown of stress categories and causation percentages
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without this breakdown, the WCJ had no basis to find the injury non-industrial and the Appeals Board could not analyze defendant's testimony without medical guidance
From the decision · page 5Here, the QME did not complete a Rolda analysis. The QME simply stated that predominant industrial causation existed. That is not sufficient to determine whether applicant's psychological injury is industrial and whether defendant met its burden of proof to establish substantial causation from lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. The QME must discuss each category of stress. For example, here, it appears that applicant was stressed with the changes in her workload, interactions with her supervisor, and being placed on a performance improvement plan.3 We do not suggest these are the only categories. That is a determination the QME must make and the QME must assign causation to each category of stress, which caused applicant's psychological injury.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Diagnosed depressive disorder with anxiety; opined that if applicant's account of work-related stress is accurate, the depressive disorder with anxiety is predominantly caused by work stress; noted basis for apportionment but gave no opinion on it.
From the decision · page 2Applicant was seen by a qualified medical evaluator in psychiatry, Marc Charles, M.D.,
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc)
Rolda analysis requirements for psychological injury causation under Labor Code section 3208.3(h)
The QME report must list all factors causing psychological injury, assign causation percentages, and address lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions to determine compensability.
From the decision · page 5In Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001), 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241, 245-246 (Appeals Board en banc), we addressed the factors that a psychological evaluator must consider in opining on causation of psychological injury and disability under section 3208.3. Per Rolda, the evaluator is required to list all factors causing psychological injury, address the percentage of causation that each factor contributes to psychological injury, list all factors causing psychological permanent disability, and address the percentage of causation that each factor contributes to permanent disability.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
QME report did not break down categories of stress or assign causation percentages as required by Rolda analysis
From the decision · page 5Here, the QME did not complete a Rolda analysis. The QME simply stated that predominant industrial causation existed. That is not sufficient to determine whether applicant's psychological injury is industrial and whether defendant met its burden of proof to establish substantial causation from lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. The QME must discuss each category of stress. For example, here, it appears that applicant was stressed with the changes in her workload, interactions with her supervisor, and being placed on a performance improvement plan.3 We do not suggest these are the only categories. That is a determination the QME must make and the QME must assign causation to each category of stress, which caused applicant's psychological injury.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.