Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001), 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc)
Psychological injury causation and compensability under Labor Code section 3208.3 and the Rolda decision
Evaluator must list causative factors and percentages; injury must be caused predominantly by actual events of employment to be compensable.
From the decision · page 51. Actual Events of Employment
In Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001), 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241, 245-246 (Appeals Board
en banc), we addressed the factors that a psychological evaluator must consider in opining on
causation of psychological injury and disability under section 3208.3. Per Rolda, the evaluator is
required to list all factors causing psychological injury, address the percentage of causation that
each factor contributes to psychological injury, list all factors causing psychological permanent
disability, and address the percentage of causation that each factor contributes to permanent
disability.
Once the evaluator issues a Rolda compliant report, the WCJ should then determine
whether the alleged injury involved actual events of employment, and whether each actual event
of employment constituted a lawful, non-discriminatory, good faith personnel action. (Cal. Lab.
Code, § 3208.3(h).)1 If the psychological injury is predominantly caused (51% or more) by actual
events of employment (or 35% or more in cases of injury caused by violent act or exposure to a
violent act), the psychological injury is compensable, unless the injury is substantially caused by
lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions, in which case the injury is not
compensable. (§ 3208.3.)
An 'actual event of employment' has been defined by the Court of Appeals as follows:
Definition of 'actual event of employment' requiring the event to be something that takes place and arise out of the employment relationship
The event must be an occurrence in the employment relationship and arise from the working relationship with the employer.
From the decision · page 5First, the factor must be an "event"; i.e., it must be "something that takes place"
(American Heritage Dict. (4th ed. 2000) p. 616) in the employment relationship.
Second, the event must be "of employment"; i.e., it must arise out of an
employee's working relationship with his or her employer.
Rubio v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 196
Statute of limitations and amendment of pleadings under Labor Code sections 5409, 5705, 5709 and case law Rubio
Amendments to pleadings to conform to proof do not violate statute of limitations; burden of proof on limitations rests with defendant.
From the decision · page 62. Amending the Pleadings and the Statute of Limitations
Next, defendant argues that applicant's amending the pleadings to conform with the proof
violates the statute of limitations. We do not agree.
The running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and therefore, the burden
of proof as to whether an application for adjudication is barred by the statute of limitations rests
with defendant, (§ 5409, 5705; see City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)
(1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 467, 471 [209 Cal. Rptr. 463, 50 Cal. Comp. Cases 53].) The limitations
period for which a claim must be filed is the later of (1) one year from the date of injury, (2) one
year from the last provision of disability payments per Labor Code sections 4650 et. seq., or (3)
one year from the last provision of medical benefits. (Ibid.)
Labor Code section 5709 states that "No informality in any proceeding or in the manner of
taking testimony shall invalidate any order, decision, award, or rule made and filed as specified in
this division..." (§ 5709.) Failure to comply with the rules as to details is not jurisdictional.