What the panel ordered
The Board amends the March 28, 2023 Findings and Order to find that the motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020 was a sudden and extraordinary event and that the applicant's claim of injury to her psyche is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Otherwise, the March 28, 2023 Findings and Order is affirmed, and all other issues are deferred.
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the WCJ on March 28, 2023, which denied compensability for the industrial psychiatric injury pursuant to Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration recommending denial of the petition. The Board granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues and issued this Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.
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 found that the motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020 was a sudden and extraordinary event, thus the applicant's psychiatric injury claim is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The applicant's credible testimony and expert medical opinions supported causation and compensability.
From the decision · page 1We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations in the Petition and the contents of the Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will amend the March 28, 2023 F&O to find that the motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020 was a sudden and extraordinary event (Finding 5) and that applicant's claim of injury to her psyche is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Otherwise, we will affirm the March 28, 2023 F&O.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020 was found to be a sudden and extraordinary event.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This finding allowed the applicant's psychiatric injury claim to not be barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d) despite less than six months employment.
From the decision · page 1We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations in the Petition and the contents of the Report with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will amend the March 28, 2023 F&O to find that the motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020 was a sudden and extraordinary event (Finding 5) and that applicant's claim of injury to her psyche is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Otherwise, we will affirm the March 28, 2023 F&O.
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 PTSD exclusively related to the motor vehicle accident on November 25, 2020, and opined that the accident was the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury.
Based on clinical interview, psychological testing, and medical records review.
From the decision · page 2On September 26, 2022, applicant was evaluated by Trevor B. Mackin, Psy.D., Panel
Treatment reports support the conclusions of Dr. Mackin regarding causation of psychiatric injury.
Treatment reports corroborate expert opinion on causation.
From the decision · page 20Applicant also submitted treatment reports from Daniel Rockers, Ph. D that support the reasoning and conclusions of Dr. Mackin. (App. Ex. 2, 3, 4 & 5) There is no evidence contradicting the findings of Dr. Mackin. Therefore, Applicant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her psyche as a result of the accident on November 25, 2020.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3208.3(d)
Labor Code section 3208.3(d) regarding compensability of psychiatric injuries caused by sudden and extraordinary employment conditions
The Board applied this statute to determine that the motor vehicle accident was a sudden and extraordinary event, making the psychiatric injury compensable despite less than six months employment.
From the decision · page 11(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in the case of employees whose injuries resulted from being a victim of a violent act or from direct exposure to a significant violent act, the employee shall be required to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were a substantial cause of the injury.... (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, no compensation shall be paid pursuant to this division for a psychiatric injury related to a claim against an employer unless the employee has been employed by that employer for at least six months. The six months of employment need not be continuous. This subdivision shall not apply if the psychiatric injury is caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition.
South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291
Burden of proof on employee to establish injury AOE/COE by preponderance of evidence
The Board noted the employee's burden to prove injury arising out of and in the course of employment by a preponderance of the evidence.
From the decision · page 10The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE 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.) With respect to psychiatric injuries, section 3208.3 provides, in relevant part:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony describing the motor vehicle accident and its traumatic impact
From the decision · page 20Applicant asserted that the auto accident was a sudden and extraordinary event that meets the requirements of Labor Code Section 3208.3(d).3 Applicant's credible testimony at trial established by a preponderance of the evidence that the auto accident was a sudden event. (MOH-SOE Pages 4 § 6) Applicant's description of the accident is confirmed by the video of constitutes an extraordinary event.
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.