What the panel ordered
WCJ's Findings of Fact of April 23, 2021 rescinded; case returned to trial level for further development and new decision.
Petition for Reconsideration granted; WCJ's Findings of Fact rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
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 failed to properly apply the good faith personnel action defense and must make specific findings on the Rolda factors upon remand.
From the decision · page 10In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ opined, in one sentence, that applicant's interactions with his superiors regarding compliance with company dress code "appeared to be a good faith personnel action[.]" (Opinion on Decision, p. 5.) We can assume that, in so stating, the WCJ was
The WCJ applied the incorrect post-termination defense statute to the psychiatric claim, warranting rescission and remand for proper analysis under section 3208.3(e).
From the decision · page 8On April 23, 2021, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact disputed herein, finding that applicant's psychiatric claim was barred by the post-termination defense provided under section 3600(a)(10). (Findings of Fact, April 23, 2021, p. 1.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ failed to properly apply the good faith personnel action defense and did not make specific findings on the Rolda factors.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Proper application of this defense requires specific findings and medical evidence, necessitating remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 10In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ opined, in one sentence, that applicant's interactions with his superiors regarding compliance with company dress code "appeared to be a good faith personnel action[.]" (Opinion on Decision, p. 5.) We can assume that, in so stating, the WCJ was
The WCJ applied the incorrect post-termination defense statute (section 3600(a)(10) instead of section 3208.3(e)) to the psychiatric claim.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This legal error required rescission of the WCJ's Findings and remand for proper legal analysis under the correct statute.
From the decision · page 8On April 23, 2021, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact disputed herein, finding that applicant's psychiatric claim was barred by the post-termination defense provided under section 3600(a)(10). (Findings of Fact, April 23, 2021, p. 1.)
There is some evidence suggesting potential pre-termination notice of applicant's psychiatric injury and sexual harassment allegations.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These factual issues are relevant to exceptions under section 3208.3(e) and warrant further development at trial.
From the decision · page 12Because we have noted the existence of some evidence suggesting 1) potential pre- termination notice of applicant's injury5 and 2) sexual harassment allegations, issues of fact, it would be prudent to allow the parties to present additional evidence on these issues insofar as they are relevant to section 3208.3(e). Additionally, if the parties raise the good faith personnel action defense under section 3208.3(h), the WCJ must make specific findings on the Rolda factors, and,
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.
Found applicant sustained temporary partial disability with 85% causation attributed to work events described by applicant.
Report found in evidence but not tied to a decided issue in this decision.
From the decision · page 8Applicant was also seen by his primary treater, Judith Schwafel, Ph.D., who issued a report on August 22, 2019, which found that applicant sustained temporary partial disability and that 85% of the cause of the disability was attributed to the work events described by applicant. (App. Exh. 3, Report of Judith Schwafel, Ph.D., August 22, 2019, p. 9.)
Diagnosed Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood; concluded psychiatric injury was nonindustrial and barred by post-termination defense; no temporary or permanent disability; no future medical treatment or work restrictions needed.
Dr. Taylor opined the psychiatric injury was nonindustrial and barred by post-termination defense, but the Board noted the QME cannot decide legal issues and must limit to medical opinions.
From the decision · page 6On March 2, 2020, applicant was seen by qualified medical evaluator (QME) David Taylor,
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3208.3(e)
Post-termination defense for psychiatric claims under Labor Code section 3208.3(e).
The Board held that the WCJ applied the incorrect post-termination defense statute and remanded for proper application of section 3208.3(e).
From the decision · page 9The WCJ erroneously applied section 3600(a)(10) to applicant's claim. As clearly stated in the statute's first sentence, the post-termination defense applicable to psychiatric claims is provided in section 3208.3(e). Section 3208.3(e) states:
Labor Code section 3208.3(h); Labor Code section 5705; Rolda v. Pitney Bowles (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241
The Board instructed the WCJ to apply the Rolda factors and make specific findings on the good faith personnel action defense upon remand.
From the decision · page 11referring to the so-called "good faith personnel action defense" to compensability, pursuant to which an employer may seek to avoid liability for an injury by proving that it was substantially caused by "lawful, non-discriminatory, good faith personnel action." (Lab. Code, § 5705.) The good faith personnel action defense to psychiatric claims is contained in section 3208.3(h) and defendant carries the burden of proof for that defense.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Some evidence suggesting potential pre-termination notice of applicant's injury and sexual harassment allegations.
From the decision · page 12Because we have noted the existence of some evidence suggesting 1) potential pre- termination notice of applicant's injury5 and 2) sexual harassment allegations, issues of fact, it would be prudent to allow the parties to present additional evidence on these issues insofar as they are relevant to section 3208.3(e). Additionally, if the parties raise the good faith personnel action defense under section 3208.3(h), the WCJ must make specific findings on the Rolda factors, and,
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.