What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board affirmed the Amended Findings and Award of March 15, 2019, denying defendant's petition for reconsideration.
Defendant filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's Amended Findings and Award of March 15, 2019, disputing the finding of psychiatric injury and permanent disability related to the psyche injury.
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 Appeals Board found that defendant stipulated to psychiatric injury at trial and did not dispute causation until after permanent disability was added; the medical evidence and stipulation supported the finding of psychiatric injury and permanent disability with apportionment.
From the decision · page 1Defendant filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. Defendant contends, in substance, that the medical evidence does not justify the WCJ's finding that applicant sustained an industrial injury to her psyche, and that applicant is not entitled to permanent disability and further medical treatment for her alleged psyche injury.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant stipulated at trial that applicant sustained psychiatric injury industrially caused by the March 19, 2009 injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This stipulation bound the parties and supported the finding of industrial causation of psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 3As correctly noted by the WCJ in her Report, when this matter proceed to trial on May 15, 2018, defendant stipulated that applicant sustained an industrial injury to her psyche on March 19, 2009, in addition to the injuries she sustained to her neck, back, headaches, and sleep disorder. (Minutes of Hearing, 5/15/18, p. 2.) Defendant entered into this stipulation having known about Dr. Feldman's opinion on causation of the psychiatric injury for about four years. However, there is no indication in the record that defendant made any attempt to clarify the doctor's opinion on causation during that interval.
Dr. Feldman's April 16, 2014 report apportioned psychiatric permanent disability between industrial and non-industrial causes.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The report supported the finding of permanent disability and apportionment, which defendant disputed but was rejected by the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 7As the injury was sustained in 2009, prior to the change in the law regarding psychiatric injuries stemming from physical injuries, the request was found to have merit, and the modification was made, with an Amended Findings and Award. Defendant then raised the issue of predominant cause in their Petition for Reconsideration. As stated, this injury occurred in 2009, prior to the changes in the law regarding psychiatric injuries stemming from orthopedic injuries. The Applicant's need for psychiatric treatment, based on her testimony at trial and the report of Dr. Donald Feldman (EAMS DOC ID 67144834), stemmed from the industrial injury she sustained on March 19, 2009. Applicant's inability to work 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.
Dr. Feldman opined that the applicant sustained psychiatric injury industrially caused by the March 19, 2009 injury, and apportioned the psychiatric permanent disability between industrial and non-industrial factors.
Dr. Feldman's April 16, 2014 report was relied upon to support the finding of psychiatric injury and permanent disability with apportionment.
From the decision · page 7As the injury was sustained in 2009, prior to the change in the law regarding psychiatric injuries stemming from physical injuries, the request was found to have merit, and the modification was made, with an Amended Findings and Award. Defendant then raised the issue of predominant cause in their Petition for Reconsideration. As stated, this injury occurred in 2009, prior to the changes in the law regarding psychiatric injuries stemming from orthopedic injuries. The Applicant's need for psychiatric treatment, based on her testimony at trial and the report of Dr. Donald Feldman (EAMS DOC ID 67144834), stemmed from the industrial injury she sustained on March 19, 2009. Applicant's inability to work and
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1)
Applicant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined, meaning work-related causes must be more than 50% of the entire set of causal factors.
Applied to the issue of industrial causation of psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 21 Under Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1), applicant must "demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined [,]" which means that work-related cause(s) must be more than 50% of the entire set of causal factors. (Department of Corrections/State of California v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 810, 816 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 1356].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant stipulated at trial that applicant sustained psychiatric injury industrially caused by the March 19, 2009 injury.
From the decision · page 3As correctly noted by the WCJ in her Report, when this matter proceed to trial on May 15, 2018, defendant stipulated that applicant sustained an industrial injury to her psyche on March 19, 2009, in addition to the injuries she sustained to her neck, back, headaches, and sleep disorder. (Minutes of Hearing, 5/15/18, p. 2.) Defendant entered into this stipulation having known about Dr. Feldman's opinion on causation of the psychiatric injury for about four years. However, there is no indication in the record that defendant made any attempt to clarify the doctor's opinion on causation during that interval.
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.