What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied.
Petition for reconsideration filed by applicant disputing the finding that she did not sustain a compensable psychiatric injury during employment.
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 applicant did not sustain a compensable psychiatric injury because the medical evidence showed her psychiatric diagnoses were predominantly caused by non-industrial factors, not work stress, consistent with Labor Code section 3208.3 requirements.
From the decision · page 3Applicant has filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration wherein she disputes the Findings and Order dated 6/21/20222 finding that applicant did not sustain injury to her psyche while employed during the period 05/17/2006 through 01/11/2016 as an office assistant for the Department of Social Services. Applicant contends that the finding that she did not sustain an industrial injury is not based on substantial medical evidence
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Work stress caused significant exacerbation of symptoms but was not the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The exacerbation alone does not meet the higher threshold for compensability under Labor Code section 3208.3.
From the decision · page 5In the context of the claimant's pre-existing history of anxiety, panic attacks, mood instability and substance abuse, it appears that she experienced a significant exacerbations of symptoms when exposed to alleged mistreatment in the workplace....
Applicant had pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses including anxiety disorder, panic disorder, bipolar disorder, and substance abuse prior to the reported work stress.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This showed that the psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by non-industrial factors, not work stress, leading to denial of compensability.
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.
Applicant's psychiatric diagnoses were predominantly caused by non-industrial factors, with work stress significantly exacerbating pre-existing conditions but not constituting the predominant cause of injury.
Dr. Dean's report and testimony established that the applicant's mental disorders predated the work stress and were predominantly caused on a non-industrial basis, consistent with Labor Code section 3208.3.
From the decision · page 3Applicant contends that the opinion of QME Dr. Andrew Dean (Psychologist) on the issue of injury does not constitute substantial medical evidence because it is based on an incorrect legal theory.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3208.3
Labor Code section 3208.3 establishes a higher threshold for compensability of psychiatric injury requiring predominant cause by actual events of employment.
The Board applied section 3208.3 to determine that the applicant's psychiatric injury was not predominantly caused by work events and thus not compensable.
From the decision · page 7Labor Code section 3208.3 (a), (b) (1) and (c) states:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's medical records showing pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses including anxiety disorder, panic disorder, bipolar disorder, and substance abuse prior to reported work stress.
Applicant's testimony and medical evidence showing work stress caused significant exacerbation but not predominant cause of psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 5In the context of the claimant's pre-existing history of anxiety, panic attacks, mood instability and substance abuse, it appears that she experienced a significant exacerbations of symptoms when exposed to alleged mistreatment in the workplace....
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.