ADJ19198086 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant and denied by the Appeals Board on August 25, 2025, following the WCJ's Amended Report and Recommendation.

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.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailed

The Appeals Board found the applicant's credible testimony that employment began on April 6, 2022, with onboarding activities constituting actual service under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Defendant failed to prove the employment period was insufficient and did not rebut the stipulation that applicant was employed on November 1, 2022.

From the decision · page 3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. Section 3208.3(d) provides in pertinent part that "no compensation shall be paid pursuant to this division for a psychiatric injury related to a claim against an employer unless the employee has been employed by that employer for at least six months. The six months of employment need not be continuous." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(d).)

The facts that decided it

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

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)

Labor Code section 3208.3(d) requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims, which need not be continuous.

The Board applied the statute to determine the employment period requirement for compensability of psychiatric injury.

From the decision · page 3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. Section 3208.3(d) provides in pertinent part that "no compensation shall be paid pursuant to this division for a psychiatric injury related to a claim against an employer unless the employee has been employed by that employer for at least six months. The six months of employment need not be continuous." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(d).)

Garcia v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1435

Employment means actual service for the employer, not necessarily paid work, under section 3208.3(d).

The Board relied on Garcia to interpret 'employment' as actual service, including onboarding activities before paid work began.

From the decision · page 3The Court of Appeal has previously opined that the word "employment" in section 3208.3(d) means "the performance of actual service for the employer." (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1442 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 1575].) Section 3208.3(d) specifically provides that the six months of employment "need not be continuous," and cases before and subsequent to Garcia have held that the six months of employment can be accrued by actual service both before and after the injury. (See Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Carpenter) (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 1048 (writ den.); County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Atalla) (2003) 68 Cal.Comp.Cases 944 (writ den.).)

CIGA v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Avila) (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 1323

The burden of proof to show insufficient employment period under section 3208.3(d) rests with the defendant employer.

The Board applied this precedent to assign burden of proof to defendant for the six-month employment requirement.

ADJ19198086 · August 25, 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.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page