What the panel ordered
Findings of Fact and Order dated June 7, 2019, affirmed; applicant takes nothing on her injury claim.
Petition for Reconsideration granted to further study factual and legal issues; WCJ Findings of Fact and Order (June 7, 2019) initially found no compensable psychiatric injury; WCAB Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration affirms WCJ 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 WCJ found applicant not credible and that the claimed psychiatric injury was not caused by actual events of employment but rather lawful, nondiscriminatory good faith personnel actions; the WCAB affirmed this finding.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 7, 2019, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain a compensable psychiatric injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE); and the WCJ Ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her injury claim.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was found not credible by the WCJ and WCAB, undermining her claim of psychiatric injury due to work stress and harassment.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Credibility findings led to rejection of applicant's claim that her psychiatric injury was caused by actual events of employment.
Supervisors testified applicant had absenteeism, tardiness, and lack of focus affecting work performance; managers developed plans to assist her.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This evidence supported the finding that personnel actions were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith, not harassment or mistreatment causing injury.
From the decision · page 3They evaluated her workload. Her position was unique. She did a different type of work from other people but not any more than other people. For example, the accounts payable person has more work than Applicant does, but the accounts payable person is all right with it. The current person in the same position as Applicant has no trouble meeting the deadline. Punctuality has always been an issue. She would call in sick. She would not show up. In the last 6 months, she was not at work once a week. (MOH/SOE p. 10.)
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 clinical psychiatric syndrome and chronic adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood; assigned 90% industrial causation with 70% to perceived versus actual stress, harassment and mistreatment (deferred to trier of fact) and 20% to personnel actions; found personnel actions were not a substantial cause of injury.
Dr. Marusak deferred to the trier of fact to determine compensability of perceived versus actual harassment and mistreatment and found personnel actions were not a substantial cause of injury.
From the decision · page 2Psychiatric qualified medical examiner (QME) Susan L. Marusak, M.D., evaluated
Provided reports supporting applicant's claim of psychiatric injury due to increased workload and stress.
Referenced in dissenting opinion as supporting applicant's claim of psychiatric injury due to workload and stress.
From the decision · page 6DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISIONER MARGUERITE SWEENEY For the reasons discussed below, it is my opinion that the trial record likely supports a finding that the increasing amount of work assigned to applicant resulted in a work overload and her repeated requests for help, which in turn caused her psychiatric injury. Under these circumstances, I believe it is appropriate to further develop the record, and based thereon, I respectfully dissent. Applicant testified that she had increasingly more work assigned to her, that the project managers did not timely approve the invoices applicant needed in order to meet the payment timelines, and that over time, there was more strict enforcement of those timelines. (MOH/SOE, pp. 6 § 9.) Her testimony is consistent with the email exhibits (App. Exhs. 6, 7, 9, and 11), and the reports from treating physicians Heath Hinze, Psy.D., and William C. Sim, M.D. (See App. Exhs. 2, 3 and 4.) It appears that although QME Dr. Marusak determined applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by stress, excessive workload, and the harassment/mistreatment by her supervisor, she could not determine whether applicant's injury was caused by "actual events of employment." (App. Exh. 1, p.
Provided reports supporting applicant's claim of psychiatric injury due to increased workload and stress.
Referenced in dissenting opinion as supporting applicant's claim of psychiatric injury due to workload and stress.
From the decision · page 6DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISIONER MARGUERITE SWEENEY For the reasons discussed below, it is my opinion that the trial record likely supports a finding that the increasing amount of work assigned to applicant resulted in a work overload and her repeated requests for help, which in turn caused her psychiatric injury. Under these circumstances, I believe it is appropriate to further develop the record, and based thereon, I respectfully dissent. Applicant testified that she had increasingly more work assigned to her, that the project managers did not timely approve the invoices applicant needed in order to meet the payment timelines, and that over time, there was more strict enforcement of those timelines. (MOH/SOE, pp. 6 § 9.) Her testimony is consistent with the email exhibits (App. Exhs. 6, 7, 9, and 11), and the reports from treating physicians Heath Hinze, Psy.D., and William C. Sim, M.D. (See App. Exhs. 2, 3 and 4.) It appears that although QME Dr. Marusak determined applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by stress, excessive workload, and the harassment/mistreatment by her supervisor, she could not determine whether applicant's injury was caused by "actual events of employment." (App. Exh. 1, p.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3208.3(h)
Labor Code section 3208.3(h) - No compensation for psychiatric injury substantially caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory good faith personnel action.
Applied to deny compensation as injury was substantially caused by good faith personnel actions.
From the decision · page 13Therefore, 90% of applicant's injury resulted from a lawful, nondiscriminatory good faith personnel action. Labor Code section 3208.3(h). No compensation shall be paid by an employer for a psychiatric injury if the injury was substantially caused by a lawful, nondiscriminatory good faith personnel action. Labor Code action 3208.3(h).
Rolda multilevel analysis for compensability of psychiatric injury involving actual events of employment.
Applied to determine that applicant failed to show psychiatric injury involved actual events of employment due to lack of credibility and evidence.
From the decision · page 9In order for a psychiatric injury to be compensable, certain conditions must be satisfied1, Comp Cases 241. The first step in the Rolda multilevel analysis, set forth in Labor Code § 3208.3(b)(l), requires Applicant to show that the psychological injury involves actual events of employment.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant found not credible by WCJ and WCAB; applicant's testimony contradicted by supervisors' credible testimony.
Supervisors' testimony that applicant had absenteeism, tardiness, and lack of focus affecting work performance; managers developed plans to assist applicant.
From the decision · page 3They evaluated her workload. Her position was unique. She did a different type of work from other people but not any more than other people. For example, the accounts payable person has more work than Applicant does, but the accounts payable person is all right with it. The current person in the same position as Applicant has no trouble meeting the deadline. Punctuality has always been an issue. She would call in sick. She would not show up. In the last 6 months, she was not at work once a week. (MOH/SOE p. 10.)
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.