What the panel ordered
WCAB affirmed the WCJ's Findings & Order dated October 30, 2023, denying defendant's good faith personnel action defense and finding applicant sustained injury to psyche and nervous system arising out of employment
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant after WCJ Findings & Order; WCAB conducted de novo review and affirmed WCJ decision
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold February 5, 2024.
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 defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the personnel actions (January 25, 2018 meeting and July 2, 2018 termination) were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith, based on credible applicant testimony and medical evidence from QME Dr. Sean Sassano-Higgins.
From the decision · page 17II. DISCUSSION ROLDA ANALYSIS The Applicant has filed a claim alleging continuous trauma injury to her psyche, and the defendant has raised the good faith personnel action defense per Labor Code 3208.3(h). Accordingly, the undersigned applied the multilevel analysis required by Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (en banc) 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 241 as follows: (1) Whether the alleged psychiatric injury involves actual events of employment, a factual/legal determination. As per the report from QME Dr. Sean Sassano-Higgins dated August 2, 2023, the applicant sustained psychiatric injury which was apportioned 30% to the root cause analysis meeting on January 25, 2018, and 30% to "unfair termination". (Defense Exhibit M). In the opinion of the undersigned, the meeting and the applicant's termination were actual events of employment. (2) If so, whether such actual events were the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury, a determination which requires medical evidence. In the opinion of the undersigned, the root cause analysis meeting and the applicant's termination were the predominant causes of the applicant's psychiatric injury, as per the report from QME Dr.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's credible testimony was the only personal knowledge evidence of the January 16, 2018 incident; defense failed to call or provide declarations from other eyewitnesses
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility finding favored applicant and undermined defense good faith claim
No fair investigation was conducted before imposing Level 4 discipline; discipline was not objectively reasonable
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported finding that personnel actions were not in good faith
Employer's conduct during January 25, 2018 meeting was criticizing, blaming, and berating applicant in front of coworkers
Favours Applicant prevailed
Demonstrated lack of good faith in personnel action
From the decision · page 20In the opinion of the undersigned, the actions taken by the employer during the meeting such as criticizing, blaming and berating the applicant in front of approximately 14 people including the applicant's co-workers, were not made in good faith.
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 apportioned 30% to the January 25, 2018 meeting and 30% to the July 2, 2018 termination, both actual events of employment and predominant causes of injury.
QME apportioned causation of psychiatric injury to personnel actions; report found credible and persuasive by WCJ and WCAB.
From the decision · page 17II. DISCUSSION ROLDA ANALYSIS The Applicant has filed a claim alleging continuous trauma injury to her psyche, and the defendant has raised the good faith personnel action defense per Labor Code 3208.3(h). Accordingly, the undersigned applied the multilevel analysis required by Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (en banc) 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 241 as follows: (1) Whether the alleged psychiatric injury involves actual events of employment, a factual/legal determination. As per the report from QME Dr. Sean Sassano-Higgins dated August 2, 2023, the applicant sustained psychiatric injury which was apportioned 30% to the root cause analysis meeting on January 25, 2018, and 30% to "unfair termination". (Defense Exhibit M). In the opinion of the undersigned, the meeting and the applicant's termination were actual events of employment. (2) If so, whether such actual events were the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury, a determination which requires medical evidence. In the opinion of the undersigned, the root cause analysis meeting and the applicant's termination were the predominant causes of the applicant's psychiatric injury, as per the report from QME Dr.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3208.3(h)
Good faith personnel action defense under Labor Code section 3208.3(h)
Defendant bears burden to prove personnel actions were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith; analysis guided by Rolda multilevel test and Cotran objective reasonableness standard.
From the decision · page 3No 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.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony found more credible than defense witnesses; defense failed to provide rebuttal witnesses with personal knowledge of key incident
From the decision · page 4The undersigned found the applicant's testimony at trial to be more credible than that of the defense witnesses.
No fair investigation of January 16, 2018 incident; Level 4 discipline imposed without objective reasonableness
Employer's actions during January 25, 2018 meeting (criticizing, blaming, berating in front of coworkers) not made in good faith
From the decision · page 20In the opinion of the undersigned, the actions taken by the employer during the meeting such as criticizing, blaming and berating the applicant in front of approximately 14 people including the applicant's co-workers, were not made in good faith.
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.