ADJ9425810 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

May 31, 2022 Findings and Order rescinded; new findings entered that applicant sustained injury to psyche arising out of employment and compensation is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(h).

Petition for Reconsideration granted; prior WCJ Findings and Order of May 31, 2022 set aside; new findings to be issued after reconsideration.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold January 14, 2022.

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.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedpsyche

The QME opined that 60% of the psychiatric injury was caused by actual events of employment, meeting the predominance requirement under Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1). The employer failed to prove that good-faith personnel action was a substantial cause of the injury under section 3208.3(h).

From the decision · page 15However, this analysis misconstrues the compensability requirements under section 3208.3 with respect to a claim of psychiatric injury. Section 3208.3(b)(1) requires the applicant "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).) Here, there is no dispute that the QME has opined that 60 percent of applicant's psychiatric injury was caused by actual events of employment. (Ex. R, Report of Boukje Eerkens, Psy.D., dated May 23, 2017, at p. 2.) Thus, applicant's claim of psychiatric injury meets the predominance requirements of section 3208.3(b)(1).

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

QME opined 60% of psychiatric injury caused by actual events of employment, meeting predominance requirement.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established compensability under Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1).

From the decision · page 15However, this analysis misconstrues the compensability requirements under section 3208.3 with respect to a claim of psychiatric injury. Section 3208.3(b)(1) requires the applicant "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).) Here, there is no dispute that the QME has opined that 60 percent of applicant's psychiatric injury was caused by actual events of employment. (Ex. R, Report of Boukje Eerkens, Psy.D., dated May 23, 2017, at p. 2.) Thus, applicant's claim of psychiatric injury meets the predominance requirements of section 3208.3(b)(1).

Employer failed to prove that good-faith personnel action was a substantial cause of injury, only one event (supervisor reprimand) caused 15% of injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This meant compensation was not barred under Labor Code section 3208.3(h).

From the decision · page 20Having reviewed the entire record, it appears that none of the three remaining events of employment implicated applicant's employment status or could otherwise reasonably be construed as personnel action taken by the employer. Thus, of the four actual events of employment identified by the QME as causative of applicant's psychiatric injury, each causing 15 percent of the injury, only the "supervisor reprimand" constituted personnel action. Because only one event of employment was personnel action, and because that personnel action caused 15 percent of applicant's psychiatric injury, it appears that defendant has not met its burden of establishing that personnel action was a substantial cause (i.e., 35 to 40 percent) of applicant's injury. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(h) ["the burden of proof shall rest with the party asserting the issue"].) Accordingly, we preliminarily conclude that compensation is not barred under section 3208.3(h).

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1)

Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1) requires that actual events of employment be the predominant cause of psychiatric injury.

Applied to determine compensability of psychiatric injury.

From the decision · page 15However, this analysis misconstrues the compensability requirements under section 3208.3 with respect to a claim of psychiatric injury. Section 3208.3(b)(1) requires the applicant "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).) Here, there is no dispute that the QME has opined that 60 percent of applicant's psychiatric injury was caused by actual events of employment. (Ex. R, Report of Boukje Eerkens, Psy.D., dated May 23, 2017, at p. 2.) Thus, applicant's claim of psychiatric injury meets the predominance requirements of section 3208.3(b)(1).

Labor Code section 3208.3(h)

Labor Code section 3208.3(h) places burden on party asserting good-faith personnel action defense to prove it was a substantial cause of injury.

Applied to assess employer's defense of good-faith personnel action.

From the decision · page 20Having reviewed the entire record, it appears that none of the three remaining events of employment implicated applicant's employment status or could otherwise reasonably be construed as personnel action taken by the employer. Thus, of the four actual events of employment identified by the QME as causative of applicant's psychiatric injury, each causing 15 percent of the injury, only the "supervisor reprimand" constituted personnel action. Because only one event of employment was personnel action, and because that personnel action caused 15 percent of applicant's psychiatric injury, it appears that defendant has not met its burden of establishing that personnel action was a substantial cause (i.e., 35 to 40 percent) of applicant's injury. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(h) ["the burden of proof shall rest with the party asserting the issue"].) Accordingly, we preliminarily conclude that compensation is not barred under section 3208.3(h).

ADJ9425810 · February 3, 2026

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