What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinded the May 21, 2024 Findings and Award, substituted new Findings of Fact, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with the decision.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on May 21, 2024, which found applicant sustained an industrial psychiatric injury and rejected the good faith personnel action defense; the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation to deny the petition; the WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the Findings and Award, substituted new findings, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.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 WCJ and WCAB found that the good faith personnel action defense did not apply because the assault was the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury and defendant presented no evidence that the assault was a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 21, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in relevant part that applicant sustained an industrial psychiatric injury and that the defense of good faith personnel action pursuant to the Labor Code section1 3208.3(h) does not apply.
The WCJ found that applicant sustained an industrial psychiatric injury caused predominantly by the assault on May 6, 2022, based on the QME Dr. Stowell's medical opinion. The good faith personnel action defense was found not applicable as the assault was the predominant cause and no evidence showed the assault was a personnel action.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 21, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in relevant part that applicant sustained an industrial psychiatric injury and that the defense of good faith personnel action pursuant to the Labor Code section1 3208.3(h) does not apply.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was assaulted by an inmate-patient on May 6, 2022, causing a psychiatric injury predominantly caused by the assault.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact established the industrial psychiatric injury and negated the good faith personnel action defense as the assault was not a personnel action.
From the decision · page 5Here, QME Dr. Stowell determined that applicant's specific injury of May 6, 2022 was "predominantly caused by the traumatic accident itself of being assaulted by an inmate-patient during the course of her work." Thus, based on the reporting of Dr. Stowell, applicant met her burden to show that she sustained injury to her psyche on May 6, 2022.
Defense presented no evidence that the assault was a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without such evidence, the good faith personnel action defense could not bar liability for the psychiatric injury.
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 psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by the assault on May 6, 2022, with 65% causation attributed to the assault and 35% to other employment-related personnel actions; no non-occupational causes were found.
Dr. Stowell's opinion was based on detailed examination, history, records review, and diagnostic testing, and was found to be reasonable medical probability and substantial evidence for causation.
From the decision · page 7Here, applicant was evaluated by QME Dr. Stowell on November 3, 2022. Dr. Stowell examined applicant, took a detailed history, reviewed records, performed diagnostic testing, and issued a report on November 7, 2022. (Exhibit 1, pp. 1-9.) Dr. Stowell was provided additional records and issued supplemental reports on January 20, 2023 (Exhibit 3) and October 16, 2023 (Exhibit A). Although his November 7, 2022 report is somewhat circuitous, Dr. Stowell opined, with reasonable medical probability, that actual events of employment were the predominant cause of applicant's psychiatric injury and that he found no non-occupational causes. (Exhibit 1, pp. 12- 13.) He opined that 65% of applicant's psychiatric injury was caused by the assault on May 6, 2022, and he attributed the remaining 35% to unrelated events of employment, including difficulties with co-workers and supervisors leading to a process of progressive discipline beginning in approximately May of 2021. (Exhibit 1, p. 13; Exhibit A, p. 5.)
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(b) and (h) regarding compensability of psychiatric injury and good faith personnel action defense.
The WCJ applied these provisions to determine compensability and the applicability of the good faith personnel action defense.
From the decision · page 5Once the issue of industrial psychiatric injury has been established, an employer may seek to bar its liability for compensation pursuant to section 3208.3(h), which provides that:
San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cardozo) (2013) 190 Cal.App.4th 1; Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241
Rolda analysis steps for evaluating good faith personnel action defense.
The WCJ followed the multilevel Rolda analysis to evaluate the good faith personnel action defense.
From the decision · page 5When a psychiatric injury is alleged and the "good faith personnel action" defense has been raised, the WCJ must evaluate the defense according to a multilevel analysis. (San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cardozo) (2013) 190 Cal.App.4th 1, 9 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 1251] (writ den.).) This is referred to as a Rolda analysis, based on Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241. The Cardozo and Rolda cases provide a roadmap for this analysis. After considering all the medical evidence and the other documentary and testimonial evidence of record, the WCJ must make the following determinations:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant was assaulted by an inmate-patient on May 6, 2022, causing injury to right wrist, hand, and thumb, and psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 6Here, it is undisputed that applicant sustained injury to her right wrist, hand, and thumb when she was assaulted by an inmate/patient on May 6, 2022. In other words, although defendant disputes that applicant sustained an injury to her psyche as a result of the assault, defendant does not dispute that applicant was assaulted on May 6, 2022.
Defense witness testified that she was not supervisor at time of assault and had no direct knowledge of the event, presenting no evidence that the assault was a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action.
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.