Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302
Employee bears burden of proving injury arose out of and in the course of employment by preponderance of evidence.
Applied to determine compensability of psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION
The employee bears the burden of proving the injury arose out of and in the course of
employment by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp.
Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code,
§ 3600(a), 3202.5.)1 Whether an employee's injury arose out of and in the course of employment
Lab. Code, 3208.3(b)(1)
To establish compensable psychiatric injury, employee must show actual events of employment were predominant cause (>50%) of injury.
Applied to assess causation of psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 4Section 3208.3(b)(1) states that: "In 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."
"Predominant as to all causes" means that "the work-related cause has greater than a 50 percent
share of the entire set of causal factors." (Dept. of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(Garcia) (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 810, 816 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 1356, 1360]; Watts v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 684, 688 (writ den.).) If the threshold for a
compensable psychiatric injury has been met under section 3208.3(b), and the employer has
asserted that some of the actual events of employment were good faith personnel actions, the WCJ
must determine whether section 3208.3(h) bars applicant's claim. Section 3208.3(h) provides as
follows:
Lab. Code, 3208.3(h)
No compensation for psychiatric injury substantially caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action.
Applied to consider employer's affirmative defense.
From the decision · page 4No 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.
Lab. Code, 3208.3(b)(3)
Substantial cause defined as at least 35-40% of causation from all sources combined.
Applied in multilevel analysis of psychiatric injury claims.
From the decision · page 4Section 3208.3(b)(3) defines substantial cause as "at least 35 to 40 percent of the causation from
all sources combined." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(3).)
Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc)
WCJ must determine causation, personnel actions, and substantial cause in psychiatric injury claims per multilevel analysis.
Applied to guide WCJ's multilevel analysis.
From the decision · page 4A 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:
E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928
Medical opinion must be based on adequate examination and history, not speculative or erroneous.
Applied to evaluate medical evidence adequacy.
From the decision · page 5Medical evidence is required if there is an issue regarding the compensability of the claim.
(Lab. Code, § 4060(c)(d), 4061(i), 4062.3(l).) A medical opinion must be framed in terms of
reasonable medical probability, it must be based on an adequate examination and history, it must
not be speculative, and it must set forth reasoning to support the expert conclusions reached. (E.L.
Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928
[71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620-621
(Appeals Bd. en banc).) "Medical reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are
known to be erroneous, or if they are based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical
histories and examinations, or on incorrect legal theories. Medical opinion also fails to support
the Board's findings if it is based on surmise, speculation, conjecture or guess." (Hegglin v.
Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93].) Defendant
holds the burden of proof on apportionment of permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 5705; see also
Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 613.)