What the panel ordered
Findings and Award issued May 14, 2021, rescinded; issues of psyche injury, permanent disability, and attorney's fees deferred; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Petitions for reconsideration of Findings and Award issued May 14, 2021, granted; issues deferred and matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
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.
Attorney fees issue deferred pending further proceedings.
From the decision · page 5Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the F&A and substitute findings that defer the issues of whether applicant sustained injury to the psyche, the amount of permanent disability, and attorney's fees; and we will return the matter to the trial level further proceedings consistent with this decision.
The permanent disability rating and apportionment issues were deferred pending further proceedings due to incomplete record.
From the decision · page 5Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we will rescind the F&A and substitute findings that defer the issues of whether applicant sustained injury to the psyche, the amount of permanent disability, and attorney's fees; and we will return the matter to the trial level further proceedings consistent with this decision.
The record was incomplete on whether applicant's period of employment met the six-month requirement for psyche injury compensation; the issue was deferred for further development.
From the decision · page 5Because the evidentiary record on whether applicant's period of employment meets the section 3208.3(d) six-month requirement is incomplete, we conclude that the record requires further development on the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to the psyche.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's employment periods were two separate short terms totaling less than six months, with disputed evidence on actual length.
Favours neutral
This fact was central to determining whether the six-month rule for psyche injury compensation applied, leading to deferral for further development.
From the decision · page 5Because the evidentiary record on whether applicant's period of employment meets the section 3208.3(d) six-month requirement is incomplete, we conclude that the record requires further development on the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to the psyche.
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.
From the decision · page 21. Parts of body injured. Applicant claims injury to psyche, internal, low back, head, consciousness, and neuro psych. 2. Permanent disability apportionment. 3. Need for further medical treatment. 4. Attorney fees. 5. The applicability of the six-month rule, and whether or not Applicant's claim for injury to his psyche is barred by the six-month rule. 6. Whether or not Dr. Bruce McCormack is a QME or panel QME, Defense Counsel has five days from today's date to submit supplemental trial exhibits to prove that. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, March 21, 2021, pp. 2:36-3:3.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3208.3(d)
Labor Code section 3208.3(d) requiring six months employment for psyche injury compensation.
Applied to determine eligibility for psyche injury compensation.
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION Labor Code section2 3208.3(d) provides, in pertinent part, that "no compensation shall be paid pursuant to this division for a psychiatric injury related to a claim against an employer unless the employee has been employed by that employer for at least six months. The six months of employment need not be continuous." (§ 3208.3(d).) This provision applies to psyche claims pled as a compensable consequence of a physical injury. (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1435 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 1575].) Section 5705 states that the "burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding the affirmative of the issue." (§ 5705.) Applicant thus bears the burden of proving his injury arose out of and in the course of her employment (AOE/COE). (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Labor Code section 5705
Burden of proof on party holding affirmative of issue per Labor Code section 5705.
Applied to burden of proof for injury arising out of employment.
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION Labor Code section2 3208.3(d) provides, in pertinent part, that "no compensation shall be paid pursuant to this division for a psychiatric injury related to a claim against an employer unless the employee has been employed by that employer for at least six months. The six months of employment need not be continuous." (§ 3208.3(d).) This provision applies to psyche claims pled as a compensable consequence of a physical injury. (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1435 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 1575].) Section 5705 states that the "burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding the affirmative of the issue." (§ 5705.) Applicant thus bears the burden of proving his injury arose out of and in the course of her employment (AOE/COE). (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's employment record was incomplete and disputed regarding the six-month employment requirement for psyche injury compensation.
From the decision · page 5Because the evidentiary record on whether applicant's period of employment meets the section 3208.3(d) six-month requirement is incomplete, we conclude that the record requires further development on the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to the psyche.
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.