What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings of Fact and Order rescinded and substituted; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings of Fact and Order issued January 2, 2025 rescinded and substituted; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
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 Board deferred the issue of whether defendant established its good faith personnel action defense due to lack of evaluation of lawfulness and good faith in the record.
From the decision · page 10Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that defers the issue of whether defendant established its good faith personnel action defense by showing that the personnel actions of applicant's suspension and termination were lawful, nondiscriminatory and in good faith.
The Appeals Board found that applicant sustained a mental disorder causing disability diagnosed under proper criteria and that the injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment including suspension and termination, contrary to the WCJ's prior finding.
From the decision · page 8Here, the record shows that applicant sustained a mental disorder which causes disability or need for treatment which was diagnosed under the proper criteria and was substantially caused by applicant's suspension and termination. (Joint Ex. 1, PQME report of Zara Ashikyan, Ph.D., dated September 16, 2021, pp. 34-39.) The WCJ's finding that applicant did not sustain injury on the grounds that it could not have resulted from actual events of employment is thus without support. (Opinion on Decision, pp. 3-4.) After all, applicant's suspension and termination constitute actual events of employment. Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her psyche.
The Board found that applicant's testimony about a racial epithet note left by a co-worker constituted objective evidence of harassment, rejecting the WCJ's contrary finding.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained a mental disorder causing disability diagnosed under proper criteria.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established the compensable psychiatric injury under Labor Code Section 3208.3(a).
From the decision · page 8Here, the record shows that applicant sustained a mental disorder which causes disability or need for treatment which was diagnosed under the proper criteria and was substantially caused by applicant's suspension and termination. (Joint Ex. 1, PQME report of Zara Ashikyan, Ph.D., dated September 16, 2021, pp. 34-39.) The WCJ's finding that applicant did not sustain injury on the grounds that it could not have resulted from actual events of employment is thus without support. (Opinion on Decision, pp. 3-4.) After all, applicant's suspension and termination constitute actual events of employment. Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her psyche.
Applicant's suspension and termination were actual events of employment causing psychological injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These events were found to be predominant causes of the psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 8Here, the record shows that applicant sustained a mental disorder which causes disability or need for treatment which was diagnosed under the proper criteria and was substantially caused by applicant's suspension and termination. (Joint Ex. 1, PQME report of Zara Ashikyan, Ph.D., dated September 16, 2021, pp. 34-39.) The WCJ's finding that applicant did not sustain injury on the grounds that it could not have resulted from actual events of employment is thus without support. (Opinion on Decision, pp. 3-4.) After all, applicant's suspension and termination constitute actual events of employment. Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her psyche.
Applicant's testimony about racial epithet note left by co-worker constituted objective evidence of harassment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the finding that injury resulted from actual events of employment.
Record lacks evaluation whether defendant's personnel actions were lawful, nondiscriminatory and in good faith.
Favours neutral
This led to deferral of the good faith personnel action defense issue.
From the decision · page 10Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that defers the issue of whether defendant established its good faith personnel action defense by showing that the personnel actions of applicant's suspension and termination were lawful, nondiscriminatory and in good faith.
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.
Applicant's psychological injury was predominantly caused by psychological stress from work environment, with no significant non-industrial psychological issues.
The PQME report found the psychological injury was predominantly caused by work-related stress and no significant non-industrial causes.
From the decision · page 3I opine within reasonable medical certainty, that the applicant's psychological injury was predominantly (greater than 50%) the result of the psychological stress stemming from her work environment, leading up to psychological pathology, which she sustained in the course of her employment at Comprehensive Pain Center AKA Comprehensive Spine & Pain Physicians. It appears that there are no significant non-industrial psychological issues or trauma to which a significant portion of her current psychological symptoms could be attributed. (Id., p. 39.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code Section 3208.3(a)-(b)(1) and (h)
Defines compensability of psychiatric injury, actual events of employment, and good faith personnel action defense.
From the decision · page 7applicant's claim of injury to her psyche, section 3208.3 provides:
Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc)
Sets multilevel analysis for employer's good faith personnel action defense.
From the decision · page 9Under Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc), a the WCJ's determination of the employer's affirmative defense of a lawful, nondiscriminatory personnel action requires the following multilevel analysis:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony about racial epithet note left by co-worker
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.