What the panel ordered
Findings and Award of March 4, 2020 rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for new decision
Petition for Reconsideration granted to further study factual and legal issues; Findings and Award rescinded and matter returned to WCJ for new decision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.
The Appeals Board found the WCJ's original decision lacked a detailed Rolda analysis on the good faith personnel action defense, requiring remand for further factual and legal study.
From the decision · page 3(a) A psychiatric injury shall be compensable if it is a mental disorder which causes disability or need for medical treatment,... ... (b)(3) For the purposes of this section, "substantial cause" means at least 35 to 40 percent of the causation from all sources combined. ... (h) No 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)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Original Findings and Award lacked detailed Rolda analysis on good faith personnel action defense
Favours Applicant prevailed
This deficiency required rescission and remand for further factual and legal study
From the decision · page 4Our review of the record indicates that although the good faith personnel action defense was an issue submitted for decision neither the Opinion on Decision nor the Report, include a detailed Rolda analysis. Thus, it is appropriate that we rescind the F&A and upon return of the matter to the WCJ, we recommend that he issue a new decision that includes a detailed Rolda analysis as discussed above. Also, we note that if upon review of the trial record, the WCJ determines that the record needs to be further developed, the WCJ has the discretion to request a supplemental report from Dr. Mekjian and/or to confer with the parties to determine the appropriate means for further developing the record. (McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2001) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138 (Appeals Board en banc); Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].)
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 major depressive disorder in remission with a GAF score of 70; apportioned industrial and non-industrial causes for psychiatric condition.
The opinion was considered for causation and apportionment of the psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 2Applicant was evaluated by psychology qualified medical examiner (QME) Michael Z.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3208.3
Labor Code section 3208.3
Defines compensability of psychiatric injury and good faith personnel action defense
From the decision · page 3(a) A psychiatric injury shall be compensable if it is a mental disorder which causes disability or need for medical treatment,... ... (b)(3) For the purposes of this section, "substantial cause" means at least 35 to 40 percent of the causation from all sources combined. ... (h) No 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)
Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc)
Four-step Rolda analysis for good faith personnel action defense
Requires WCJ to analyze good faith personnel action defense in four steps
From the decision · page 4The Appeals Board has laid out the four-step "good faith personnel action defense" analysis that a WCJ must perform when that defense is an issue submitted for decision. (Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc) (Rolda).) The analysis is to be conducted as follows:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Psychology QME report and testimony of Dr. Mekjian
From the decision · page 2Applicant was evaluated by psychology qualified medical examiner (QME) Michael Z.
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.