California WCABPanel decision

ADJ10024232 · November 30, 2023

The WCAB granted the Petition for Reconsideration, rescinded the September 26, 2023 Findings and Order, found that applicant suffered a compensable psyche injury arising out of and in the course of employment, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 1
Authorities named: 1
District office: Bakersfield

What the panel ordered

applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 26, 2023 Findings & Order, which barred her cumulative trauma psyche injury claim under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold July 20, 2023, January 12, 2021.

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 prevailedpsyche

The WCAB found that the factors contributing to the applicant's psyche injury were not predominantly caused by good faith personnel actions as defined by law, thus the claim was not barred under section 3208.3(h).

From the decision · page 1

Private workspace

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

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

The facts that decided it

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

The QME identified 26 factors contributing to the psyche injury, with percentage values assigned to each.

Favours neutral

The breakdown of factors was central to determining which were good faith personnel actions and whether they barred the claim under section 3208.3(h).

From the decision · page 11Initially, we lay out the grounds upon which the parties are agreed. First, the parties agree that applicant's injury involved actual events of employment, the first prong of the Rolda test. Second, the parties also agree that applicant's injury was predominantly caused by those events of employment, the second prong of Rolda. Furthermore, neither party has taken issue with the breakdown of applicant's injury by the QME into 26 factors, or with the percentage values ascribed to each factor.6

The Board distinguished between general stressful working conditions and specific good faith personnel actions, rejecting a broad interpretation that would bar all employment-related stressors.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This legal distinction was key to rejecting the defense's argument that many factors were good faith personnel actions.

From the decision · page 13However, we find that recognizing the distinction between a psychiatric injury caused by stressful working conditions, and an injury caused by a good faith nondiscriminatory "personnel action" directed specifically towards an individual's employment status, is both important and necessary, and the contrary view of the panel in Schultz is not adopted here. Without the distinction, the phrase "personnel action" would encompass everything in the employment environment that stems from good faith management actions, and that "would be too broad an interpretation that would preclude from consideration practically all events occurring such as work loads." (Larch, supra, 63 Cal. Comp. Cases at

Defendant failed to prove that certain factors, such as dissatisfaction with supervisors' qualifications and project reassignments, were good faith personnel actions.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This failure meant those factors could not be counted towards the 35% bar under section 3208.3(h), favoring the applicant's claim compensability.

From the decision · page 16If anything, it appears from the QME's notes that this factor relates to more generalized dissatisfaction on applicant's part with what she felt as the indignity of being subject to complaints from supervisors who she did not consider as qualified as herself, not to specific instances related to personnel actions, which are addressed in other factors. Accordingly, we do not believe that defendant carried its burden to demonstrate that this factor should be considered as stemming from a personnel action.

ADJ10024232 · November 30, 2023

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

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

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page