ADJ11641128 — California WCAB decision

ADJ11641128 · January 27, 2023

The Board affirmed the Joint Findings and Award of October 31, 2022, denying defendant's petition for reconsideration and upholding the finding of compensable psychiatric injury in ADJ11641129 without temporary or permanent disability but with further medical treatment awarded.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Van Nuys

What the panel ordered

Defendant sought reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on October 31, 2022, challenging the finding of psychiatric injury in ADJ11641129; the WCJ recommended denial of the petition, and the Board issued this decision after reconsideration.

Read the official 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.

Psyche AOE/COEApplicant prevailedpsyche

The Board found that the applicant sustained a compensable psychiatric injury arising out of and in the course of employment based on the unrebutted expert opinion of psychiatric QME Dr. Yatin Patel, who performed a Rolda analysis and attributed predominant causation to actual events of employment, with 45% due to harassment and hostile work environment and 30% due to personnel actions, which did not meet the threshold to bar compensation under Labor Code section 3208.3(h).

From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND Applicant claims to have sustained a psychiatric injury while employed by defendant as a Claims Adjustor during the period from October 25, 2017, through October 25, 2018 (ADJ11641129). Applicant also claims injury to her cervical spine and bilateral elbows while employed by defendant during the period from February 20, 2017, through February 20, 2018 (ADJ11641128). The Findings and Award regarding case number ADJ11641128 are not disputed and will not be addressed herein. On March 22, 2019, applicant was evaluated by psychiatric qualified medical examiner (QME) Yatin Patel, M.D. Dr. Patel interviewed applicant, took a history, reviewed the medical record, and conducted psychiatric testing. The diagnoses included: adjustment disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, in partial remission; Panic Disorder Without Agoraphobia, in partial remission; and a GAF (Global Assessment of Function) score of 78 [0% whole person impairment]. (Def. Exh. F, Yatin Patel, M.D., March 22, 2019, p. 30.) Dr. Patel discussed a "4 steps Rolda analysis" (Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc) (Rolda)) and then stated:

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Dr. Patel's unrebutted expert opinion that actual events of employment were the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This opinion established compensability under Labor Code section 3208.3 and was adopted by the WCJ and Board.

From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND Applicant claims to have sustained a psychiatric injury while employed by defendant as a Claims Adjustor during the period from October 25, 2017, through October 25, 2018 (ADJ11641129). Applicant also claims injury to her cervical spine and bilateral elbows while employed by defendant during the period from February 20, 2017, through February 20, 2018 (ADJ11641128). The Findings and Award regarding case number ADJ11641128 are not disputed and will not be addressed herein. On March 22, 2019, applicant was evaluated by psychiatric qualified medical examiner (QME) Yatin Patel, M.D. Dr. Patel interviewed applicant, took a history, reviewed the medical record, and conducted psychiatric testing. The diagnoses included: adjustment disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, in partial remission; Panic Disorder Without Agoraphobia, in partial remission; and a GAF (Global Assessment of Function) score of 78 [0% whole person impairment]. (Def. Exh. F, Yatin Patel, M.D., March 22, 2019, p. 30.) Dr. Patel discussed a "4 steps Rolda analysis" (Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc) (Rolda)) and then stated:

Applicant's credible and compelling testimony corroborated the history provided to Dr. Patel and was not rebutted by defense witnesses.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the factual finding that the actual events of employment occurred, a necessary step in the Rolda analysis for compensability.

From the decision · page 9The first step in such a "Rolda" analysis is a factual one, determining whether actual events of employment are involved. As defendants' petition points out, this was not for Dr. Patel to determine, but for the workers' compensation judge to find. However, in this case, the opinion on decision did expressly indicate that "[t]he undersigned does believe those events cited by Dr. Patel as causes of applicant's injury actually occurred" (Joint Opinion on Decision dated October 28, 2022, p. 6, last two lines). Accordingly, it is clear from the opinion on decision that the undersigned found that all of the actual or alleged events of employment to which Dr. Patel attributed predominant causation of an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and panic disorder without agoraphobia actually did occur, as required under a Rolda analysis. Although it may not have been expressly stated in the opinion, this finding that the actual events of employment discussed by Dr. Patel actually happened was based upon consideration of applicant's credible and compelling testimony, which the testimony of defense witnesses was insufficient to rebut, with applicant's testimony corroborating the history provided to Dr. Patel.

ADJ11641128 · January 27, 2023

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page