What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted in part; decision of 12/21/2023 rescinded; matter remanded to WCJ for further proceedings on causation of psychiatric injury and catastrophic injury status; permanent disability award for sexual dysfunction reversed.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant, granted in part, decision of 12/21/2023 rescinded and matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings on causation of psychiatric injury and catastrophic injury status under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B).
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.
This issue depends on the causation of psychiatric injury and is deferred pending further record development.
From the decision · page 1RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Reconsideration (petition) and the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings on the issues of: 1) causation of applicant's alleged psychiatric injury, and 2) whether the alleged psychiatric injury is "catastrophic" under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B).1 This is not a final decision on the merits of these issues and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration of the WCJ's new decision thereon. As noted in the Report, the WCJ agrees with defendant's additional argument that the WCJ erroneously awarded applicant an increase in his permanent disability rating for sexual dysfunction under section 4660.1(c)(2)(B). (Lab. Code, § 4660.1(c)(2)(B).) This issue and the other issues discussed in the Report should be considered at the trial level in the first instance.
The WCJ found Dr. Wexler's causation opinion unclear and recommended further development of the record to clarify causation of psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 1RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Reconsideration (petition) and the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings on the issues of: 1) causation of applicant's alleged psychiatric injury, and 2) whether the alleged psychiatric injury is "catastrophic" under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B).1 This is not a final decision on the merits of these issues and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration of the WCJ's new decision thereon. As noted in the Report, the WCJ agrees with defendant's additional argument that the WCJ erroneously awarded applicant an increase in his permanent disability rating for sexual dysfunction under section 4660.1(c)(2)(B). (Lab. Code, § 4660.1(c)(2)(B).) This issue and the other issues discussed in the Report should be considered at the trial level in the first instance.
The WCJ exceeded authority by awarding permanent disability for sexual dysfunction, which is not compensable under Labor Code section 4660.1.
From the decision · page 1RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Reconsideration (petition) and the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings on the issues of: 1) causation of applicant's alleged psychiatric injury, and 2) whether the alleged psychiatric injury is "catastrophic" under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B).1 This is not a final decision on the merits of these issues and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration of the WCJ's new decision thereon. As noted in the Report, the WCJ agrees with defendant's additional argument that the WCJ erroneously awarded applicant an increase in his permanent disability rating for sexual dysfunction under section 4660.1(c)(2)(B). (Lab. Code, § 4660.1(c)(2)(B).) This issue and the other issues discussed in the Report should be considered at the trial level in the first instance.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Wexler's opinion that nearly all psychiatric injury is due to physical disability but actual employment events were predominant causes of psychiatric injury.
Favours neutral
This opinion was unclear and required further development of the record to clarify causation of psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 5The contentions from the Petition will be addressed in the order they were raised. Defendant cites a section entitled "Discussion of Compensability of Psychiatric Injury:" in Dr. Gerald Wexler's report dated 3/15/2023. From that section, Defendant quotes Dr. Wexler as follows: "Compensability of the 90% of the applicant's total emotional injury flowing secondary to his industrial orthopedic injury occurring in October 2013 are not compensable." However, this section cannot be read alone and ignores the previous section entitled "Discussion of Causation of Injury" in which he states "nearly all of applicant's psychiatric injury is due to his physical disability, with no grounds for other apportionment of causation of injury." He goes on to indicate "within reasonable medical probability, the actual events of employment were predominant to all causes combined to have produced psychiatric injury, "and "the injuries have arisen out of employment and during the course of employment".
The WCJ exceeded authority by awarding permanent disability for sexual dysfunction, which is not compensable under Labor Code section 4660.1.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This led to reversal of the sexual dysfunction permanent disability award.
From the decision · page 6The final argument as to whether the Applicant is entitled to additional disability for sexual dysfunction is clear. The WCJ erred in awarding permanent disability arising from sexual dysfunction as the sexual dysfunction arose out of a compensable consequence in the instant matter. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 4660.1, Applicant is not entitled to additional permanent disability arising from sexual dysfunction. The Petition for Reconsideration should be granted on this issue.
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. Wexler opined that nearly all of applicant's psychiatric injury is due to his physical disability and that the actual events of employment were predominant causes of the psychiatric injury.
The WCJ found Dr. Wexler's causation opinion unclear and recommended further development of the record to clarify causation of psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 5The contentions from the Petition will be addressed in the order they were raised. Defendant cites a section entitled "Discussion of Compensability of Psychiatric Injury:" in Dr. Gerald Wexler's report dated 3/15/2023. From that section, Defendant quotes Dr. Wexler as follows: "Compensability of the 90% of the applicant's total emotional injury flowing secondary to his industrial orthopedic injury occurring in October 2013 are not compensable." However, this section cannot be read alone and ignores the previous section entitled "Discussion of Causation of Injury" in which he states "nearly all of applicant's psychiatric injury is due to his physical disability, with no grounds for other apportionment of causation of injury." He goes on to indicate "within reasonable medical probability, the actual events of employment were predominant to all causes combined to have produced psychiatric injury, "and "the injuries have arisen out of employment and during the course of employment".
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B)
Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B)
The issue of catastrophic injury status and sexual dysfunction permanent disability award were analyzed under this statute.
From the decision · page 1RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Reconsideration (petition) and the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings on the issues of: 1) causation of applicant's alleged psychiatric injury, and 2) whether the alleged psychiatric injury is "catastrophic" under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B).1 This is not a final decision on the merits of these issues and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration of the WCJ's new decision thereon. As noted in the Report, the WCJ agrees with defendant's additional argument that the WCJ erroneously awarded applicant an increase in his permanent disability rating for sexual dysfunction under section 4660.1(c)(2)(B). (Lab. Code, § 4660.1(c)(2)(B).) This issue and the other issues discussed in the Report should be considered at the trial level in the first instance.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Wexler's conflicting statements on causation and compensability of psychiatric injury
From the decision · page 5The contentions from the Petition will be addressed in the order they were raised. Defendant cites a section entitled "Discussion of Compensability of Psychiatric Injury:" in Dr. Gerald Wexler's report dated 3/15/2023. From that section, Defendant quotes Dr. Wexler as follows: "Compensability of the 90% of the applicant's total emotional injury flowing secondary to his industrial orthopedic injury occurring in October 2013 are not compensable." However, this section cannot be read alone and ignores the previous section entitled "Discussion of Causation of Injury" in which he states "nearly all of applicant's psychiatric injury is due to his physical disability, with no grounds for other apportionment of causation of injury." He goes on to indicate "within reasonable medical probability, the actual events of employment were predominant to all causes combined to have produced psychiatric injury, "and "the injuries have arisen out of employment and during the course of employment".
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.