ADJ15168100 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration denied; WCJ's order to develop the record on psychiatric injury upheld.

Defendant filed a petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order dated May 24, 2024, challenging the order to develop the record on psychiatric injury.

Read the official decision →

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.

Medical treatment / UR / IMRDefendant prevailedpsychiatric system

The WCJ found the psychiatric injury evidence inconclusive and ordered further development of the record, which the WCAB panel upheld, denying the petition for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 24, 2024. The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her abdominal wall; that the record needs development on the disputed issue of industrial injury to the psychiatric system; and that applicant's claim is presumptively compensable pursuant to Labor Code, section 5402. The WCJ ordered that the "disputed issue of industrial injury to the psychiatric system is deferred pending further development of the record."

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 3208.3

An applicant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment predominantly caused the psychiatric injury to establish compensability under Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1).

Applied to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence for psychiatric injury causation.

From the decision · page 5Pursuant to Labor Code § 3208.3(b)(1), in order to establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an applicant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment predominantly caused the psychiatric injury.

Labor Code section 5402

A claim is presumptively compensable under Labor Code section 5402.

The WCJ found the claim presumptively compensable under this section.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 24, 2024. The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her abdominal wall; that the record needs development on the disputed issue of industrial injury to the psychiatric system; and that applicant's claim is presumptively compensable pursuant to Labor Code, section 5402. The WCJ ordered that the "disputed issue of industrial injury to the psychiatric system is deferred pending further development of the record."

Labor Code sections 5701 and 5906

Labor Code sections 5701 and 5906 authorize the WCJ and Board to obtain additional evidence at any time during proceedings to develop the record.

Supported the WCJ's order to develop the record due to insufficient evidence.

From the decision · page 6Notwithstanding the Defendant's claim that the undersigned WCJ should find unfavorably against the Applicant based solely on an insufficient evidentiary record, where a WCJ identifies "deficiencies, inaccuracies or lack of completeness," in the medical record, "Labor Code [] 5701 and 5906 authorize the WCJ and the Board to obtain additional evidence, including medical evidence, at any time during the proceedings." [McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2002) 67 Cal. Comp. Cases 138, 141 (Appeals Board en banc).] "[A]llowing full development of the evidentiary record to enable a complete adjudication of the issues is consistent with due process in connection with workers' compensation claims and militates in favor of our presuming the continued vitality of [] 5701 and 5906, absent a clear legislative intention to the contrary." [Tyler v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp.

ADJ15168100 · August 1, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page