California WCABPanel decision

ADJ10978648 · April 26, 2021

Petition for Reconsideration denied

Issues decided: 2
Medical opinions weighed: 2
Authorities named: 2
District office: San Diego

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied

Petition for Reconsideration denied after review of WCJ report

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.

Medical treatment / UR / IMRApplicant prevailedback

Dr. Yoo's medical reports and applicant's testimony were found to be substantial medical evidence supporting industrial injury to the back.

From the decision · page 8B. CONTENTION B: WITH RESPECT TO ADJ10978648 (BACK INJURY): THAT HE MEDICAL REPORTING OF DR. YOO IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL MEDICAL EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A DECISION CAN BE BASED.

Psyche AOE/COEApplicant prevailedpsyche

Applicant met burden of proof with objective evidence of actual events of employment causing psychiatric injury, supported by credible testimony and medical opinion of Dr. Elise Reed assigning 53% causation to supervisor's treatment.

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 rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code 3208.3

Labor Code section 3208.3 - Threshold of compensability for psychiatric injury

Applicant must show actual events of employment were predominant cause of psychiatric injury

From the decision · page 1Labor Code section 3208.3 states that "In order to establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee shall demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1).) This means that benefits for a psychiatric injury may be awarded only when the employee establishes that industrial factors account for more than 50% of the employee's psychiatric injury. (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1181 [69 Cal. Comp. Cases 21].) There must now also be "objective evidence of harassment, persecution, or other basis for the alleged psychiatric injury." (Verga v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 174, 186 [73 Cal.Comp.Cases 63].)

Escobedo v. Marshall's (2005 En Banc) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604

Substantial medical evidence must be based on reasonable medical probability and supported by reasoning

Medical opinion must be based on reasonable medical probability and supported by reasoning to be substantial evidence

From the decision · page 8The defendant asserts that the reports of Dr. Yoo (Joint Exhibits 2 and 3) do not meet the requirements for substantial evidence. The requirements for substantial medical evidence are set for in Escobedo v. v. Marshall's (2005 En Banc) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604, presents a thorough discussion of these cases. This is because it is well established that any decision of the WCAB must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274,281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases

ADJ10978648 · April 26, 2021

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