What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant after WCJ decision; WCAB panel denies Petition for Reconsideration, adopting and incorporating WCJ report and 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 judge found the psychiatric injury fully compensable under the violent act exception of Labor Code 4660.1(c) based on credible testimony and substantial medical evidence from Dr. Levander diagnosing PTSD from a direct injury and traumatic event.
From the decision · page 3There were multiple issues submitted for decision but the most controversial was whether the judge would find all or part of the psychiatric impairment compensable as a direct injury arising from the event on 6/3/13, or alternatively compensable under the violent act exception of Labor Code 4660.1. The judge ultimately ruled in Applicant's favor and determined the psychiatric injury was fully compensable leading to a combined permanent disability Award of 89%.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant fell approximately 6 to 8 feet from a truck onto rocks and concrete, losing consciousness and sustaining multiple injuries including head trauma.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This violent act and traumatic injury supported the compensability of the psychiatric injury under the violent act exception.
From the decision · page 3applicant, at age 45, while employed as a truck driver, for Hickory Springs of California, sustained injury on 6/3/13 involving a hernia, upper GI, bilateral shoulders, neck, lumbar spine, right knee, right ankle, hands, left ankle, and psyche. This is case ADJ9254033. There was also filed a cumulative trauma, ADJ9254163, which the parties stipulated was non-compensable. All injured body parts and need for treatment were the result of only the specific injury of 6/3/13.
Dr. Levander diagnosed PTSD and apportioned 50% of psychiatric impairment to the traumatic event and 50% to orthopedic injuries, concluding the traumatic event portion was compensable.
Favours Applicant prevailed
His medical opinion was relied upon by the judge to find compensability of the psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 8Whether applicant suffered a "compensable" psychiatric injury is the main disputed issue in this case. To help decide the issue the judge reviewed the psychiatric PQME report of Dr. Eric Levander dated 4/2/20 (Exhibit R) and Dr. Levander's deposition testimony taken on 1/7/21. (Exhibit S)
Applicant's credible testimony at trial corroborated the violent nature of the injury and loss of consciousness, supporting the violent act exception.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility of applicant's testimony was given great weight by the judge in finding compensability.
From the decision · page 11The judge agrees with Applicant that the violent act exception applies here. Dr. Levander refers to the fall and resulting head injury and loss of consciousness as a "traumatic, life-threatening experience." This is corroborated by Applicant's credible testimony at the Trial.
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.
Diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused 50% by direct injury and 50% by orthopedic injuries; concluded psychiatric injury was compensable under violent act exception and catastrophic injury exception of Labor Code 4660.1(c).
Dr. Levander's detailed report and deposition provided substantial medical evidence supporting compensability of psychiatric injury under the violent act exception.
From the decision · page 8Whether applicant suffered a "compensable" psychiatric injury is the main disputed issue in this case. To help decide the issue the judge reviewed the psychiatric PQME report of Dr. Eric Levander dated 4/2/20 (Exhibit R) and Dr. Levander's deposition testimony taken on 1/7/21. (Exhibit S)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code Section 4660.1(c)
Labor Code Section 4660.1(c) barring psychiatric disability awards for injuries secondary to physical injuries except under violent act or catastrophic injury exceptions.
Applied to determine compensability of psychiatric injury under violent act exception.
From the decision · page 9(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the impairment ratings for sleep dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, or psychiatric disorder, or any combination thereof, arising out of a compensable physical injury shall not increase. This section does not limit the ability of an injured employee to obtain treatment for sleep dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, or psychiatric disorder, if any, that are a consequence of an industrial injury.
California Labor Code Section 3208.3(b)(1)
Labor Code Section 3208.3(b)(1) requiring predominant cause of psychiatric injury to be actual events of employment.
Applied to establish burden of proof for psychiatric injury causation.
From the decision · page 8Dr. Levander's report and testimony is concluded to be substantial medical evidence that satisfies Applicant's burden of proof under Labor Code Section 3208.3(b)(l) that "that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury." The actual event of employment was the serious injury Applicant sustained on 6/3/13 when he fell off the back of a truck and sustained injury to his multiple body parts with claimed loss of consciousness.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony about the violent fall and loss of consciousness, consistent with medical diagnoses of PTSD.
From the decision · page 11The judge agrees with Applicant that the violent act exception applies here. Dr. Levander refers to the fall and resulting head injury and loss of consciousness as a "traumatic, life-threatening experience." This is corroborated by Applicant's credible testimony at the Trial.
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.