ADJ11317555 · March 15, 2022

The WCAB found the prior Findings and Order inadequately supported because the QME did not parse individual factors of causation or assign percentages as required by Rolda analysis, necessitating further development of the record.

From the decision · page 5In this matter, we are not persuaded that the Findings of Fact and Order is adequately

QME Dr. Zarrin found personnel actions were a substantial cause of psychiatric injury but did not assign specific percentages to individual factors of causation.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without specific percentages for each factor, the Rolda analysis is incomplete and the record must be further developed.

From the decision · page 5supported in the record because a Rolda analysis requires the evaluating physicians to parse the

The WCJ found credible testimony from applicant and employer witnesses, supporting the need for further factual development.

Favours neutral

Credibility findings support the thoroughness of the record but do not resolve the causation percentages required for compensation determination.

The date of injury has not been established and must be determined under Labor Code section 5412 for cumulative trauma cases.

Favours neutral

Establishing the correct date of injury is necessary for proper evaluation of injurious exposure periods and causation analysis.

From the decision · page 7Additionally, we note that the date of injury herein has not been established. The date of injury in cumulative trauma cases is set by Labor Code section 5412, as the "date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment." As part of the development of the record in this matter, the evaluating physician(s) should be provided with the correct date of injury under section 5412 and should further identify the applicable period(s) of injurious exposure.

Diagnosed Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Moderate, with industrial predominance; found personnel actions were a substantial cause of psychiatric injury but did not assign specific percentages to individual factors.

The QME found the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury was cumulative trauma work incident and that personnel actions were a substantial cause, but left it to the trier of fact to determine lawfulness and percentages of causation for individual factors.

From the decision · page 3Yassi Zarrin, Psy.D. acted as the Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) in psychology, and issued an initial report November 12, 2018. Dr. Zarrin established a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Moderate, with industrial predominance. (Ex. 13, report of Yassi Zarrin, Psy.D., dated November 12, 2018 at p.42.) Dr. Zarrin issued a supplemental report and record review on March 18, 2019, but offered no new medical-legal opinions. (Ex. 14, report of QME Yassi Zarrin, Psy.D., dated March 18, 2019.) The parties deposed Dr. Zarrin on April 8, 2019. The QME agreed therein to issue a supplemental report addressing the analysis required under Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc opinion) (Rolda) to address defendant's contention that the injury arose out of lawful, nondiscriminatory good faith personnel action. (Ex. 15, transcript of the deposition of QME Yassi Zarrin, Psy.D., dated April 8, 2019.)

Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc)

Labor Code section 3208.3 and the multilevel analysis required under Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc)

The WCJ must determine whether the psychiatric injury involves actual events of employment, whether such events were the predominant cause, whether any were lawful personnel actions, and whether those actions were a substantial cause of the injury.

From the decision · page 5The WCJ, after considering all the medical evidence, and the other documentary and testimonial evidence of record, must determine: (1) whether the alleged psychiatric injury involves actual events of employment, a factual/legal determination; (2) if so, whether such actual events were the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury, a determination which requires medical evidence; (3) if so, whether any of the actual employment events were personnel actions that were lawful, nondiscriminatory and in good faith, a factual/legal determination; and (4) if so, whether the lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions were a "substantial cause" of the psychiatric injury, a determination which requires medical evidence. Of course, the WCJ must then articulate the basis for his or her findings in a decision which addresses all the relevant issues raised by the criteria set forth in Labor Code section 3208.3. (Rolda, supra, at 247.)