What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is granted; final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits and entire record.
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on May 5, 2025, which found no compensable psychiatric injury and ordered that applicant take nothing. The WCJ Report recommended denial of the petition. The Appeals Board grants reconsideration and defers final decision pending further review.
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 WCJ found no compensable psychiatric injury because the termination was a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action. The applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for compensability under Labor Code section 3208.3. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits.
From the decision · page 1Applicant, acting in pro per,1 seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 5, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant worked for more than six (6) months, but there is no industrial injury to the psyche as the applicant failed to carry their burden of proof. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant worked for more than six months but failed to prove compensable psychiatric injury under Labor Code section 3208.3.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact was central to the WCJ's finding and the Appeals Board's review of compensability.
From the decision · page 1Applicant, acting in pro per,1 seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 5, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant worked for more than six (6) months, but there is no industrial injury to the psyche as the applicant failed to carry their burden of proof. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.
Termination was found to be a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action, negating compensability of psychiatric injury.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact was key to the denial of the claim and the Appeals Board's consideration of good faith personnel action defense.
From the decision · page 5(h) No compensation under this division shall be paid by an employer for a psychiatric injury if the injury was substantially caused by a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action. The burden of proof shall rest with the party asserting the issue.
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.
Examined applicant and completed psychological testing; issued initial and supplemental reports concluding the claim of injury was due to termination and raised issue of good faith personnel action.
The QME's opinion was central to the issue of compensability of the psychiatric injury and the good faith personnel action defense.
From the decision · page 4(Report, p. 2.) Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) in psychology, Elsie Cheng, Ph.D., examined
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3208.3
For psychiatric injury, employee must show actual events of employment were predominant cause (35-40%) of injury; higher threshold for compensability applies.
Applied to determine compensability of psychiatric injury claim under higher threshold.
From the decision · page 4(b) (1) 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.
Labor Code section 3208.3(h)
No compensation for psychiatric injury if injury was substantially caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action; burden on party asserting issue.
Applied to find no compensability due to good faith personnel action.
From the decision · page 5(h) No compensation under this division shall be paid by an employer for a psychiatric injury if the injury was substantially caused by a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action. The burden of proof shall rest with the party asserting the issue.
Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241; San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cardozo) (2013) 190 Cal.App.4th 1
Good faith personnel action defense established by case law.
Applied to evaluate good faith personnel action defense in psychiatric injury claim.
From the decision · page 5action. (See Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241, 245-247 (Appeals Bd. en
Labor Code section 3600, 3600(a), 3202.5; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291
To be compensable, an injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment; employee bears burden of proof by preponderance of evidence.
Applied to evaluate compensability of psychiatric injury claim.
From the decision · page 4III. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: To be compensable, an injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment. (Lab. Code, § 3600.) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a); 3202.5.) Where applicant claims a psychiatric injury, section 3208.3 states:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant failed to carry burden of proof for compensable psychiatric injury; termination was found a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action.
From the decision · page 1Applicant, acting in pro per,1 seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 5, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant worked for more than six (6) months, but there is no industrial injury to the psyche as the applicant failed to carry their burden of proof. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.
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.