ADJ16415273 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's Findings of Fact of January 31, 2025, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision.

Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact dated January 31, 2025, which found industrial psychiatric injury. The WCAB granted reconsideration and returned the matter to the trial level for further development of the medical record and decision.

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/COERemandedpsyche

The WCAB found the medical record and causation analysis insufficiently developed, particularly regarding the separation of causation from personnel actions versus underlying conduct and accusations, requiring further development and analysis on remand.

The facts that decided it

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

The medical record and causation analysis were insufficiently developed, particularly regarding the separation of causation from personnel actions versus underlying conduct and accusations.

Favours neutral

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) good faith personnel action defense

The WCJ found the personnel action defense did not bar the claim as the causation percentage was below the 35% threshold; the WCAB required further analysis on this issue.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact of January 31, 2025, wherein it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending January 5, 2022, applicant sustained industrial injury to the psyche. In finding industrial injury, the WCJ found, "Defendant failed to meet its burden of proof and demonstrate the psychological injury is barred by the good faith personnel action defense pursuant to Labor Code § 3208.3(h)."

Colombo v. State of California (1991) 3 Cal.App.4th 594

The WCAB instructed the WCJ to analyze the application of Colombo on remand regarding causation and personnel actions.

From the decision · page 4intended by Dr. Alvarez to be a causative factor under the umbrella of each "investigation." We note that a co-worker's complaint or accusation is not a personnel action. (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 785, 788 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 379].) In the further proceedings, a doctor must get a detailed history from the applicant and determine the exact causative factors of the industrial injury, including segregating causation caused by underlying conduct and accusations from the employer's actual conduct of any investigations and the result of any investigations. We encourage the parties to agree to an agreed medical evaluator and, if the WCJ considers it helpful, they may appoint an evaluating physician pursuant to Labor Code section 5701. If still relevant, the WCJ should analyze the application of Colombo v. State of California (1991) 3 Cal.App.4th 594, 598 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 102] and Vann v. City and County of San Francisco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1013 [89 Cal.Comp.Cases 39] to the facts of this matter.

Vann v. City and County of San Francisco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1013

The WCAB instructed the WCJ to analyze the application of Vann on remand regarding causation and personnel actions.

From the decision · page 4intended by Dr. Alvarez to be a causative factor under the umbrella of each "investigation." We note that a co-worker's complaint or accusation is not a personnel action. (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 785, 788 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 379].) In the further proceedings, a doctor must get a detailed history from the applicant and determine the exact causative factors of the industrial injury, including segregating causation caused by underlying conduct and accusations from the employer's actual conduct of any investigations and the result of any investigations. We encourage the parties to agree to an agreed medical evaluator and, if the WCJ considers it helpful, they may appoint an evaluating physician pursuant to Labor Code section 5701. If still relevant, the WCJ should analyze the application of Colombo v. State of California (1991) 3 Cal.App.4th 594, 598 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 102] and Vann v. City and County of San Francisco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1013 [89 Cal.Comp.Cases 39] to the facts of this matter.

ADJ16415273 · April 21, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page