Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1)
In order to establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury.
Applied to require clear factual findings of actual events of employment for QME to opine on causation.
From the decision · page 7In order to establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee shall
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of
employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric
injury.
Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1)
No compensation for psychiatric injury if substantially caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action; burden on party asserting defense.
Applied to consider good faith personnel action defense raised by defendant.
From the decision · page 8No compensation under this division shall be paid by an employer for a
psychiatric injury if the injury was substantially caused by a lawful,
nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action. The burden of proof shall rest
with the party asserting the issue.
Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc)
Multilevel analysis required for industrial psychiatric injury with good faith personnel action defense, dividing roles of WCJ and QME in determining actual events and medical causation.
Applied to explain division of labor between WCJ and QME in causation analysis.
From the decision · page 8A multilevel analysis is accordingly required when an industrial psychiatric injury is
alleged and the employer raises the affirmative defense of a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith
personnel action. (Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en
banc).) The required multilevel analysis is as follows:
City of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2017) 82 Cal. Comp. Cases 1404
An aggravation is an increase in severity of a pre-existing condition with permanent pathology change; an exacerbation is a temporary symptom increase returning to prior level; aggravation constitutes injury for workers' compensation.
Applied to distinguish aggravation from exacerbation in circulatory injury context.
From the decision · page 11Finally, we make a few observations on other issues that will need to be revisited in light
of our decision to rescind the FoF. First, although the FoF finds no injury to applicant's circulatory
system based on the QME's conclusion that the injury was a temporary exacerbation of applicant's
pre-existing condition resulting in no permanent disability, we note that the question of whether
an injury constitutes an aggravation or an exacerbation is one of law, and neither the QME's choice
of wording nor the absence of permanent disability are dispositive factors. (See City of Los
Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2017) 82 Cal. Comp. Cases 1404, 1406 (writ
den.).) An aggravation is an increase in the severity of a pre-existing condition where the
underlying pathology is permanently moved to a higher level. An exacerbation is a temporary
increase in the symptoms of a pre-existing condition that returns to its prior level within a
reasonable period of time. The industrial aggravation of a pre-existing condition constitutes an