What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ Findings and Order of July 20, 2021, and substituted new Findings that applicant sustained injury to psyche and internal system arising out of employment, and that compensation is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.5(h).
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ Findings and Order issued July 20, 2021, which denied injury arising out of employment and barred claim under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration on November 9, 2021, after equitable tolling of the 60-day period due to administrative delay, and issued a Decision After Reconsideration on June 30, 2026.
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 Appeals Board found that applicant sustained injury to psyche and internal system arising out of employment, and that defendant did not meet its burden to prove the injury was barred by lawful, non-discriminatory, good faith personnel actions under Labor Code section 3208.5(h).
From the decision · page 151. the applicant, age 31 at the time of injury, while employed during the period from November 5, 2005 through April 9, 2013, as a senior investigative technician, occupation group number in dispute, at Riverside, California, by the County of Riverside, permissibly self-insured and self-administered, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her psyche and internal system.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Desai opined that applicant's psychological injury was solely caused by actual events of employment, meeting the >50% causation requirement.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established compensability of the psychological injury under Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1).
From the decision · page 9Here, Dr. Desai, the psychiatric QME, has consistently opined that applicant's psychological injury was solely caused actual events of employment. Thus, applicant has met her burden to show that employment events were greater than a 50 percent share of the entire set of causal factors, and applicant has met her burden to show that she sustained an injury to her psyche.
Defendant failed to present evidence to prove personnel actions were lawful, non-discriminatory, and in good faith, despite opportunity to do so.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure meant defendant did not meet its burden to bar compensation under Labor Code section 3208.5(h).
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.
Dr. Desai opined that applicant's psychological injury was solely caused by actual events of employment, meeting the burden that work-related causes were predominant over 50%.
From the decision · page 9Here, Dr. Desai, the psychiatric QME, has consistently opined that applicant's psychological injury was solely caused actual events of employment. Thus, applicant has met her burden to show that employment events were greater than a 50 percent share of the entire set of causal factors, and applicant has met her burden to show that she sustained an injury to her psyche.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1)
To establish compensability of psychological injury, applicant must show by preponderance that actual events of employment were predominant cause (>50%) of injury.
Medical evaluator must identify all causal factors, their percentage contribution, and whether industrial or non-industrial.
From the decision · page 8II. In order to establish that a psychological injury is compensable, an injured worker must show by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1).) The phrase "predominant as to all causes combined" means that work-related cause(s) must have a greater than a 50 percent share of the entire set of causal factors. (Department of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 810, 816 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 1356].) In order for the WCJ to make this determination, the medical evaluator must conduct the following analysis: 1) identify all of the factors causing the psychological injury; 2) identify the percentage of causation that each factor contributes to psychological injury; and 3) identify whether each factor is industrial or non-industrial. This medical evidence provides an essential foundation for the WCJ's analysis.
Labor Code section 3208.5(h)
When good faith personnel action defense is raised, WCJ must evaluate if events were lawful, non-discriminatory, and in good faith to avoid liability.
Burden shifts to defendant to prove personnel actions meet criteria to bar compensation.
From the decision · page 9Because the good faith personnel action defense was raised, again pursuant to Rolda, the burden shifts to defendant to establish the following elements in order to avoid liability.
Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241
Rolda analysis requires identification of causation percentages and personnel action status for psychiatric injury claims.
WCJ and medical evaluator must determine causation and personnel action status.
From the decision · page 9Thus, when 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. (See 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.).) After considering all the medical evidence and the other documentary and testimonial evidence of record, pursuant to Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Bd. en banc), the WCJ must make the following determinations:
San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cardozo) (2013) 190 Cal.App.4th 1
Multilevel analysis required for psychiatric injury claims with personnel action defense, per San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. WCAB (Cardozo).
WCJ must determine if personnel actions were lawful, non-discriminatory, and in good faith.
From the decision · page 9Thus, when 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. (See 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.).) After considering all the medical evidence and the other documentary and testimonial evidence of record, pursuant to Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Bd. en banc), the WCJ must make the following determinations:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant did not present testimony or evidence to support that the personnel actions were lawful, non-discriminatory, and in good faith, despite opportunity to do so.
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.