Psychiatric Injury - Appeals Board Reporter

	Sign In \| Site Map \| Make Us Your Homepage
	When It Doesn't Exist Anywhere Else, Find It Here.
	Search:

Home > Subject Matter Index > Document

Comments

Psychiatric Injury
Psychiatric Injury

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY - Six-month employment threshold requirement–Labor Code §3208.3(d)–An employee claiming a compensable consequence psychiatric injury need only establish that she was employed by the employer against whom a claim is brought for a total of six months, rather than for six months at the time of the initial orthopedic injury. (See County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Atalla) (2003) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,210 [writ denied], Los Angeles Unified School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Carpenter) (2004) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,254.) Lowe's v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Jonathan Rooney) 10 WCAB Rptr. 10,143 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY - Good-faith personnel action defense–Labor Code §3208.3–The good-faith personnel action defense furnishes the employer with some freedom in making its regular and routine personnel decisions, including termination. To support a finding that the personnel action was carried out with subjective good faith so as to meet the objective reasonableness standard, it is only required that the personnel action be done in a manner lacking in outrageous conduct, honest and with a sincere purpose, without intent to mislead or defraud, and without collusion or unlawful design. (See Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Graves) (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1021, 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,008.) George Arnold v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, County of Alameda 10 WCAB Rptr. 10,130 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY - Labor Code §3208.3–To be a compensable psychiatric injury, the injury must be caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition. A fall from a ladder is within the scope of the risk of employment as a roofer, but the fall, although a sudden event, it is not an extraordinary employment event and the psychiatric injury is not compensable. (See Matea v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1435, 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,355.) Raul Villicana v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Rua & Son Mechanical, Inc. 10 WCAB Rptr. 10,066 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY - Labor Code §3208.3(b)(1)-To establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee must demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that "actual events" of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury. [In this case, the disdainful reactions of co-workers to applicant's abusive conduct toward them were neither "actual events of employment" nor the "predominant" cause of applicant's psychiatric injury.] Rosemary Verga v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, United Airlines 10 WCAB Rptr. 10,038___Cal.App.4th___

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY -Caused by actual events of employment-Labor Code §3208.3(b)(1)-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, which threshold requires industrial factors to account for more than 50% of a psychiatric disability. (See Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bryan) (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1174, 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,019.) County of Ventura v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Michael Steven Perez) 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,300 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY - Labor Code §3208.3(d)–No workers' compensation benefits shall be paid for a psychiatric injury related to a claim against an employer unless the employee has been employed by the employer for at least six months. The six months of employment need not be continuous, but there must be six months of actual service for the employer. (See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1425, 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,316.) [In this case, the injured worker worked for substantially a full six-month period except for two weeks of nonindustrial illness, and it was determined that she had substantially complied with the statutory requirement of performing six months of actual service for the employer.] California Insurance Guarantee Association v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Tracy Mills) 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,267[Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY - Labor Code §3208.3(b)(1)-To establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee must demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that "actual events" of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury. Do false perceptions of the working environment on the applicant's behalf constitute "actual events" of employment? Rosemary Verga v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, United Airlines 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,246 [Writ Granted]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY - Labor Code §3208.3(d)-The six-month employment requirement does not apply if the psychiatric injury is caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition. A sudden and extraordinary event of employment is an uncommon, unusual, and totally unexpected event or occurrence that it would naturally be expected to cause psychic disturbances even in a diligent and honest employee. (See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2001) 112 Cal.App.4th 1435, 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,316; see also, Matea v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. 144 Cal.App.4th 1435, 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,355.) California Insurance Guarantee Association v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Jose Garcia Tejera) 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,129 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY - Labor Code §3208.3(d)–Six-month employment requirement–An injured worker claiming a psychiatric injury as a compensable consequence of an industrial physical injury must prove only that he was employed by the employer against whom the claim was brought for a total of six months, rather than for six months prior to the initial physical industrial injury. (See County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Atalla) (2003) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,210 [writ denied]; Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Carpenter) (2004) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,254 [writ denied].) [writ denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY - Employment for Less Than Six Months– Labor Code §3208.3– The psychiatric aspects of a "physical-mental" injury are not compensable when the injury occurred within six months of employment. (See Wal-Mart Stores v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1435, 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,316) Alfonso Daniel Diaz v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, El Paseo Limousine Services. 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,206 Devon Gerwolls v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Volt Information Sciences 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,067 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY - Labor Code §3208.3–Sudden and extraordinary exception to the six-month employment requirement–To be considered a sudden and extraordinary employment condition as the cause of a psychiatric injury and an exception to the six-month employment requirement, the employee has the burden of showing that the event or occurrence that caused the alleged psychiatric injury was something other than a regular and routine employment event or condition, i.e., the event as uncommon, unusual, and occurred unexpectedly. (See Matea v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1435, 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,355.) [In this case, the worker fell seven feet from a ladder, sustaining a back injury and later developing a conversion disorder. Her reaction to falling off the ladder and its aftermath was found not to be a part of the sudden and extraordinary employment condition exception to the six-month employment exception.] Maria Arroyo Puga v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Zacky Farms 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,068 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY - Labor Code §3208.3–A sudden and extraordinary event of employment is an uncommon, unusual, and totally unexpected event or occurrence that it would naturally be expected to cause psychic disturbances even in a diligent and honest employee. (See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (Garcia) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1435, 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,316.) Aaron Matea v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, The Home Depot 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,355 ___Cal.App.4th___

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY-Labor Code §3208.3– An employee's psychiatric injury satisfies the standard for compensability set forth in Labor Code §3208.3 only if it is proven that events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric disability taken as a whole. [In this case, 35% of the applicant's permanent psychiatric disability was work-related, but 100% of one of her psychological disorders was work-related, so the applicant's psychiatric injury did not satisfy the standard for workers' compensation compensability.] Sonoma State University v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Lesley Hunton) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,275 ___Cal.App.4th___

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY-Labor Code §3208.3-To establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee must demonstrate by the preponderance of the evidence that actual events or employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury. The phrase "predominant as to all causes" requires the work-related cause has greater than a 50% share of the entire set of causal factors. (See Department of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1990) 76 Cal.App.4th 810.) Cynthia Krause v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,251 ___Cal.App.4th___

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY-Labor Code §3208.3–Is the predominant cause of the psyche injury based upon the injury to the psyche, in total, or to the injury to the diagnosable component of the psyche, in particular? Sonoma State University v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Lesley Hunton) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,193 [Writ Granted]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY-Labor Code §3208.3–Did the Appeals Board err when it concluded that lumber falling onto a worker's legs did not constitute a "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition within the meaning of Labor Code §3208.3, so as to allow for a compensable consequence psychiatric claim? Aaron Matea v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, The Home Depot 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,157 [writ granted]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY-Good-faith personnel action defense–Labor Code §3208.3(h)–A personnel action is conduct either by or attributable to management, including such things as done by one who has authority to review, criticize, demote or discipline an employee. (See Larch v. Contra Costa County (1998) 63 Cal.Comp.Cases 831 [Significnat Panel Decision].) [In this case, a supervisor questioning an employee about frequent rest room breaks that took the employee away from the assembly line were found to be good-faith, lawful and non-discriminatory personnel actions.] Lourdes Acacio v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Guittard Chocolate and Alaska National Insurance Company 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,163 [writ denied]

PSCYHIATRIC INJURY-Good faith personnel action defense–Labor Code §3208.3(h)–What constitutes a "personnel action" depends on the subject matter and factual setting of each case, and the terms includes but is not necessarily limited to termination. (See County of Butte v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Purcell) (2000) 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,306 [writ denied].) [In this case the applicant was criticized by the human resources manager for forwarding e-mails to the wrong employees. This criticism was not considered a personnel action because the incident did not imply that applicant would be disciplined or was threatened with discipline.] County of Alameda v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Celina Kan) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,164 [writ denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY-Labor Code §3208.3(d)–Six-month employment requirement–An injured worker claiming a psychiatric injury as a compensable consequence of an industrial physical injury must only prove that he was employed by the employer against whom the claim was brought for a total of six months, rather than for six months prior to the initial physical industrial injury. (See County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Atalla) (2003) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,210 [writ denied]; Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Carpenter) (2004) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,254 [writ denied].) [writ denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY- Six-month employment threshold requirement–Labor Code §3208.3(d)–To satisfy the six-month employment requirement, an employee claiming compensable consequence psychiatric injury need establish only that she was employed by the employer against whom the claim is made for a total of six months, rather than for six months at the time of the initial orthopedic injury. The six-month requirement is satisfied when the injured worker has worked for more than six months even though the initial injury occurred before the six months elapsed from the date of hire. (See WalMart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1435, 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,316.) California Insurance Guarantee Association v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Herlindo Fernandez) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,150 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY¬ Six-month employment threshold requirement–Labor Code §3208.3(d)–To satisfy the six-month employment requirement, an employee claiming compensable consequence psychiatric injury need establish only that she was employed by the employer against whom the claim is made for a total of six months, rather than for six months at the time of the initial orthopedic injury. The six-month requirement is satisfied when the injured worker has worked for more than six months even though the initial injury occurred before the six months elapsed from the date of hire. (See WalMart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1435, 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,316.) California Insurance Guarantee Association v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Herlindo Fernandez) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,150 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY- Good faith personnel action defense–Labor Code §3208.3(h)–In order to bar a claim based on psychiatric injury, the employer must show that the "substantial cause" of the injury was a good faith personnel action. Substantial cause means 35 to 49% of the injury. (See Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,096 [en banc].) First Bank & Trust v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Luiza Ziegler) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,132 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY- Labor Code §3208.3–A psychiatric injury is compensable if it is a mental disorder which causes disability or need for medical treatment. [In this case, despite problems that preceded the industrial injury, following the industrial injury there was a need for psychiatric treatment that was predominantly related to that injury and injured worker met the criteria for a psychiatric injury.] Advantate Driving School v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Arron Auger) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,135 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY- Good-faith personnel actions–Labor Code §3208.3–A personnel action is conduct attributable to management in managing the business, including such things as done by one in authority to review, criticize, demote, transfer, or discipline an employee in good faith. (See Larch v. Contra Costa County (1998) 63 Cal.Comp.Cases 831 [Significant Panel Decision].) (In this case, actions by supervisor during daily dispatch meetings and discussion during annual performance reviews were considered personnel actions.) Craig Germanetti v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, City of Santa Barbara 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,101 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY- Good-faith personnel action defense–Labor Code §3208.3–In determining whether the good-faith personnel action has been established, the WCJ 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 that requires medical evidence; (3) if so, whether any of the actual employment events were personnel actions that were lawful, nondiscriminatory, 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 that requires medical evidence. (See Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (2001) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,096.) Robert Carrasco v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, State Compensation Insurance Fund 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,037 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– An employee must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury. [In this case, applicant demonstrated that he experienced depression as a result of his physical injuries, the consequence of which was his inability to work for extended periods, which caused severe financial difficulties, homelessness and unemployment that the WCJ categorized as industrial causes of the need for psychiatric care.] County of Contra Costa v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Charles Guthery) 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,314 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Six-month employment requirement– Labor Code §3208.3– The requirement of six months' employment must be established to support a claim of injury to the psyche caused by an industrial physical injury. (See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1435, 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,316.) Darlene Conklin v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Runaway Tours, Inc. 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,270 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– Six-month employment requirement– An employee must have worked for the employer for at least six months to prevail on a claim of industrial psychiatric injury. This six-month requirement does not apply if the psychiatric injury was caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition. [In this case, the worker injured his head and required surgery and considerable treatment when a heavy pressing arm of a pressing machine fell with force on his head. This was considered both sudden and extraordinary.] Imperial Rose Cleaners v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Terri Owens) 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,270 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good-faith personnel action– Labor Code §3208.3(h) – No compensation shall be paid by an employer for psychiatric injury if the injury was substantially caused by a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good-faith personnel action. Although the term "personnel action" is not defined in the Labor Code, it has been found that what constitutes a personnel action depends on the subject matter and factual setting for each case. (See Bray v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 530.) [In this case, the personnel action was the change in assignment of work shifts based on seniority as required by a collective bargaining agreement.] Alejandro Amorsolo, decedent; Evangeline Joy Aurellano, Nicole Amorsolo, Elizabeth Joy Aurellano, Elizabeth Amorsolo, Mary Amorsolo v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Miller Brewing Company, Kemper Insurance 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,220 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Personnel action– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– A personnel action is conduct either by or attributable to management, including such things as done by one who has authority to review, criticize, demote or discipline an employee. It is not necessary for the personnel action to have a direct or immediate effect on the employment status. Personnel actions may include, but are not necessarily limited to, transfers, demotions, layoffs, performance evaluations and disciplinary actions such as warnings, suspensions and terminations of employment. (See Larch v. Contra Costa County (1998) 63 Cal.Comp.Cases 831. [Significant Panel Decision.]) Douglas Johnson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, City of Los Angeles 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,184 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good-faith personnel action– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– The term "good faith" has been defined as honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned to include honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing to include an act without intent to defraud. (See Efron v. Kamanovitz (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 187.) Douglas Johnson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, City of Los Angeles 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,184 [Writ Denied]

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3–To establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury. (See Dept. of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 810; Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bryan) (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1174, 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,019.) Samuel Phipps v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Los Angeles Community College District 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,153

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.5–Determination of whether the alleged psychiatric injury involves actual events of employment is a question of fact and law, and whether those events were the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury is a question requiring medical evidence. (See Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,096.) Samuel Phipps v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Los Angeles Community College District 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,153

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3(d)–Six-month employment threshold–The burden to raise and establish the applicability of the six-month employment requirement rests with the defendant. (See James v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1053.) [In this case, the record contained no direct evidence of the length of applicant's employment by defendant. The only evidence offered on this issue were hearsay statements contained in medical reports for which there was no basis to assess the accuracy of the statements contained in the medical reports.] California Insurance Guarantee Association v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Arthur Avila) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,281

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good-faith personnel action–Labor Code §3208.3(h)–In determining a good-faith personnel action, consideration must be given to whether the employer made and carried out a regular and routine personnel decision with subjective good faith and whether the employer's actions were objectively reasonable. (See City of Oakland v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gullet) (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 261, 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,195.) [In this case, after the applicant engaged in hostile and abusive actions with a co-worker, the employer's transferring of the applicant to a different store was found to be a good-faith personnel action and a complete defense to applicant's psychiatric injury claim.] Jerri Corriveau v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Safeway Stores, Inc. 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,286

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Burden of proof–To establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an applicant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury. "Predominant cause" has been interpreted to mean that industrial factors must account for more than 50% of all combined causes of the psychiatric disability. (See Sakotas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 262, 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,172.) The threshold requirements apply to all claims of psychiatric injury, including claims of psychiatric injury as a compensable consequence of industrial physical injury. (See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McCullough) (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1237, 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,099.) LeCroissant v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (David M. Roe) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,286

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– Good-faith personnel action defense– In this case, substantial medical evidence supported a finding that a dispute between applicant and the employer as to the actual amount of money owed applicant caused applicant's psychiatric disability. The failure to pay for services rendered could not be considered a lawful, non-discriminatory, good-faith personnel action. Shasta Community College v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Dan Sloan) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,272

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3–To establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury. Heavy work assignments are events that take place at work, and arise out of the working relationship. State of California, Department of Corrections v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Tracy Johnson) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,251

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Six-month employment threshold requirement–Labor Code §3208.3(d)–An employee claiming a psychiatric injury need establish only that she was employed by the employer against whom a claim is brought for a total of six months, rather than for six months at the time of the initial orthopedic injury. (See County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Atalla) (2003) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,210 [writ denied].) [In this case, the applicant was employed and working for more than six months total, the six-month requirement is met based on the total months of employment, despite the fact that the initial physical injury occurred before the six months had elapsed from the date of hire.] Los Angeles Unified School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (La Tonya Carpenter) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,254

SUICIDE– Labor Code §3600(a)(6)–An employee has not willfully and deliberately caused her own death if the employment-related injury and the resulting disability were causally related to the suicide and recovery of death benefits is proper if it is shown that without the injury, there would have been no suicide. (See Chu v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1176.) State of California, Department of Corrections v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Tracy Johnson) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,251

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good-faith personnel action–Labor Code §3208.3(h)–A personnel action need not have a direct or immediate effect on a worker's employment status and encompasses conduct either by or attributable to management, including such things done by one who has authority to review, criticize, demote, or discipline an employee. (See City of Oakland v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gullet) (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 261, 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,195.) Anthony Watts v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, California Department of Corrections 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,227

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– In this case, the WCJ using the multilevel analysis mandated by the en banc decision in Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (2001) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,096 concluded that the claimed psychiatric injury was not barred by the Labor Code §5308.3(h). The personnel actions that included the administration of a driving performance test, permanent position hiring practices and the issuance of corrective action memoranda relating to poor job performance were found not to be taken in good faith. LaMesa/Spring Valley School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Thomas Hicks) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,207

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Employment for Less Than Six Months– Labor Code §3208.3– The psychiatric aspects of a "physical-mental" injury are not compensable when the injury occurred within six months of employment. (See Wal-Mart Stores v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1435, 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,316) Alfonso Daniel Diaz v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, El Paseo Limousine Services. 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,206

SUICIDE– Based on the facts of this case, was the psychiatric injury a proximate cause of the suicide, or was the suicide merely contemporaneous or coincident with the injury? In other words, was the employee's impulse to commit suicide an uncontrollable one? Metropolitan Water District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (May Woo) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,183

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– To find injury AOE/COE, does Labor Code §3208.3 require that the applicant must be found to have had a "mental disorder" that is diagnosed pursuant to the terminology and criteria of the American Psychiatric Association's Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or other psychiatric diagnostic manuals generally approved and accepted nationally? Metropolitan Water District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (May Woo) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,183

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Is a written performance evaluation a personnel action within the meaning of the good-faith personnel action defense? Metropolitan Water District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (May Woo) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,183

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good-Faith Personnel Action Defense– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– The good-faith personnel action defense acts as a complete bar to compensation regardless of the fact that the underlying psychiatric injury was initially admitted or presumed compensable. (See Ovadia v. California State University Northridge (2002) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,335 (writ denied).) Robert Parreco v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,172

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good-faith Personnel Action Defense Code §3208.3(h)– The good-faith personnel action defense is applicable if a regular and routine personnel decision is made and carried out with subjective good faith and the employer's conduct meets the objective reasonableness standard. One must consider the totality of circumstances and not a rigid standard in determining whether the action was taken in good faith. This provides an employer with broad latitude and flexibility to deal with personnel matters without fear of a psychiatric claim so long as the employer acted honestly and without invidious intent. (See City of Oakland v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gullett) (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 261, 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,195.) Robert Parreco v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,172

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– Good-faith personnel action defense– The test of whether or not the personnel action was in good faith is a reasonableness test involving the totality circumstances and not a written standard. A personnel action must be performed in a manner that is lacking outrageous conduct, is honest and with sincere purpose without intent to mislead, deceive or defraud and is without collusion or unlawful design. Nondiscriminatory alludes to whether the employee has been treated in a similar manner as other employees in the same situation. [In this case, the employer promptly undertook an investigation of anonymous allegations in an objectively reasonable manner, using outside investigators, the investigation was completed in three months and there were no leaks about the investigation during the period of investigation.] Jarado Blue v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Pasadena Unified School District. 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,158

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– Good-faith personnel action defense– A personal action is defined as conduct attributable to management in running its business, including actions by persons in authority to review, criticize, demote, or discipline the employee. It is not necessary for the personnel action to have a direct or immediate affect on employment status. (See Larch v. Contra Costa County (1998) 63 Cal.Comp.Cases 831 [significant panel decision].) Jarado Blue v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Pasadena Unified School District. 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,158

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– 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. [In this case, the applicant was diagnosed with a depressive disorder as a result of the downsizing of her employer that resulted in a substantially increased workload as a claims examiner.] Allstate Insurance Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Danielle Kingsbury) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,153

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– A neurosis in and of itself is not a finding of disability but a finding of ultimate fact. It is the impairment caused by the neurosis that is a factor of disability. (See Zurich Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cairo) (1973) 9 Cal.3d 848.) Neurotic symptoms are ratable only to the extent that they cause disability. Positive test results, such as an MMPI or diagnosis, are not in and of themselves ratable. Measurement of psychiatric disability must follow psychiatric protocols and must be supported by substantial medical evidence. (See Cal. Code of Regs., Title 8, §9726,) [In this case, the treating psychologist found the applicant permanent and stationary with a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, in remission with no impairment of work function guidelines.] Mary Beth Kerr v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, County of Santa Barbara. 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,125

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– To establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury. The phrase "predominant as to all causes" is intended to require that the work-related cause has a greater than 50% share of the entire set of causal factors. (See Dept. of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 810.) E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Edean Sizar) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,051

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– If the employee has been employed for less than six months, the employee is not entitled to compensation for a psychiatric injury unless it was caused by a sudden extraordinary employment condition. (See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McCullough) I2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1237.) [In this case, the WCJ found that the racial/ethnic harassment by the employer was not a sudden or extraordinary employment event.] Lea Yekutiel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., Hymes & Co. 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,046

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3(b)(1)– For the purpose of determining what constitutes "actual events of employment" for compensability of psychiatric claims pursuant to Labor Code §3208.3(b)(1), employee stress that results from fluctuations in the value of an employer's stock and from uncertainty about an employer's future in the face of a downturn in the employer's business is not a compensable event of employment. Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Clifford Bryan) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,019

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– A consequential psychiatric injury is compensable if, and only if, more than half is attributable to a physical industrial injury. (See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McCullough) (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1237, 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,100.) [In this case, the treating physician opined that applicant's psychiatric impairment resulted from her emotional reactions to personnel actions rather than directly from her industrial low back injury.] Gina Broers v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Pacific Bell. 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,004

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3(d)– An employee who files a workers' compensation claim seeking benefits for an injury to the psyche that derives from the effects of an admitted routine physical injury cannot recover unless the employee has worked for the employer for at least six months. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Velta Elaine Garcia) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,316

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3(b)(1)– For the purpose of determining what constitutes "actual events of employment" for compensability of psychiatric claims pursuant to Labor Code §3208.3(b)(1), did the Appeals Board err in characterizing as work-related the stress of the impact of general upswings and downturns of the economy universally experienced by the general working population? Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Clifford Bryan) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,241

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Compensable consequence psychiatric injury–When a physical injury occurring less than six months after the date of hire is found to be the predominant cause of a consequential psychiatric injury, and the injured worker did not receive psychiatric treatment as a consequence of the physical injury until approximately one and a half years after the initial physical injury, the case is not barred by the six-month employment requirement of Labor Code §3208.3(d). Clarendon National Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Timothy Chill) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,210

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Post termination claim exclusion–Since compensable consequence injuries do not have a new and separate date of injury, if the employer had notice of physical injury prior to termination of employment, the subsequent symptoms of psychiatric problems and the addition of the new body part (psyche) to the claim of injury relates back to the original date of injury. The County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Amal Atalla) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,210

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Six-month employment threshold requirement–The employee claiming psychiatric injury must have been employed by the employer against whom the claim is brought for a total of six months, rather than six months of employment at the time of the injury resulting in the psychiatric injury. (See Hanson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1179.) The County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Amal Atalla) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,210

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3(b)– Actual events of employment– To establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury. "Predominant as to all causes" has been interpreted to mean that industrial factors must account for more than 50% of all causes combined. (See State Department of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 810.) [In this case, the WCAB panel found that the downsizing of the applicant's employer (PG&E), applicant's daily interactions with irate PG&E customers, the loss of value of applicant's PG&E stock in his retirement account, and applicant's concern about the future of PG&E and his retirement funds, were all actual events of employment that were predominant as to all causes of applicant's psychiatric injury.] Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Clifford Bryan) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,184

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3(b)(1)– Causation threshold for compensable consequence psychiatric injury– The requirement set forth in Labor Code §3208.3(b)(1) that a psychiatric injury be predominantly caused by actual events of employment applies to psychiatric injuries sustained as a compensable consequence of an industrial injury. (See Lockheed Martin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McCullough) (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1237, 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,100.) [In this case, the record was devoid of evidence to establish predominant cause of any psychiatric injury.] Nestle U.S.A., Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Blake Donovan) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,183

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Personnel action– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– A fitness-for-duty evaluation is a personnel action within the meaning of Labor Code §3208.3. [In this case, the applicant's QME found that the questioning during a fitness-for-duty evaluation aggravated her underlying major depressive and general anxiety disorder.] Linda Keener-Jester v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, State of California, California Highway Patrol. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,182

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3(d)– Is a psychiatric injury that is not a result of problems between the employer and applicant employed for only six months, but is caused by an underlying orthopedic injury, barred by Labor Code §3208.3(d) because the employment was less than six months? Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Velta Elaine Garcia) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,161

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– A multilevel analysis is required when a psychiatric injury is alleged and the defense of a lawful, nondiscriminatory good-faith personnel action is raised. The first step is a determination whether actual events of employment are involved, which is a factual/legal issue for the WCJ to determine, and the second step is the determination of the causation threshold of the psychiatric injury that must be based on competent medical evidence. [In this case, the evidence did not establish that applicant sustained a compensable psychiatric injury because the record did not support a finding that the actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury.] Kim Fabing v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Celite Corporation. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,085

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3608.3– The threshold determination to be made under Labor Code §3608.3 with respect to the compensablity an alleged psychiatric injury is whether actual events of employment are involved. (See Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,096 [en banc].) In this case, the initial event involved a police detention and the events that followed involved false phone calls and rumors at work that related to the police detention and were not related to the applicant's work as a firefighter. Robert Kalander v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, County of Los Angeles. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,067

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3(b)(1)– Applicant has the burden under Labor Code §3208.2(b)(1) to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury. This burden applies to all claims of disability arising from a mental disorder, including claims for injuries to the psyche that are characterized as a consequence or sequela of a physical industrial injury. (See Lockheed Martin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McCullough)(2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1327, 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,100.) Packard Bell v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Roger Seeley) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,054

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Apportionment between industrial and nonindustrial causes– In this case, the WCJ properly apportioned applicant's psychiatric disability based on substantial medical evidence (a psychiatric AME report) that stated applicant's overall psychiatric injury involved 25% that had been brought on by the WCAB litigation process, which in this case was extraordinary and protracted and an additional 10% resulted from the emotional trauma from civil litigation brought by the applicant (a workers' compensation defense attorney) against her employer, with the applicant ultimately losing that case. Weidner, Swanson & Paul v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Carol J. Weling) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,039

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good faith personnel action– Labor Code §3808.3(h)– In determining whether a personnel action was conducted in a good faith manner, there must be a coupling of good faith and objectivity to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably and in conformity with the prevailing social norms when conducting an investigation of alleged malfeasance? Northrop Grumman Corporation, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Robert Graves) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,008

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– For claimed psychiatric injuries, the employee must establish that his or her diagnosed mental disorder was predominantly caused by actual events of employment. Predominant cause means that the work-related cause must have greater than 50% share of the entire set of causal factors. (See Department of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 810. Kimberly Graves v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Port of Oakland. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,316

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– Good faith personnel action defense– No compensation shall be paid by an employer for a psychiatric injury if the injury was substantially caused by a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action. [In this case performance evaluations, transfer to another office space and change in flex time work schedule were found to be personnel actions.] Kimberly Graves v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Port of Oakland. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,316

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good faith personnel action– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– In this case the WCJ properly found that the applicant's psychiatric injury was not caused by the personnel action of assigning new work duties to the applicant, but was caused by her attempts to perform her duties during the ensuing five years. Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Cynthia Rivera) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,303

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good faith personnel action– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– In this case the employer's actions relating to the applicant's job performance were based either on the applicant's actual misconduct or the supervisor's honest perception that applicant had committed misconduct. The actions were taken in connection with personal actions, which could and did lead to disciplinary procedures and were good faith personnel actions within the meaning of Labor Code §3208.3(h). Yvonne Colburn v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Lompoc Unified School District. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,269

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good faith personnel action– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– No compensation shall be paid by an employer for a psychiatric injury if the injury was substantially caused by a lawful, non-discriminatory good faith personnel action. (In this case the psychiatric injury claim was barred since the disciplinary action was conducted in good faith [discipline of a Department of Corrections employee for a relationship with a parolee].) Richard G. Christensen v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Department of Corrections. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,251

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good faith personnel action– Labor Code §3808.3(h)– In determining whether a personnel action was conducted in a good faith manner must there be a coupling of good faith and objectivity to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably and in conformity with the prevailing social norms when conducting an investigation of alleged malfeasance? Northrop Grumman Corporation, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Robert Graves) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,248

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Lawful, non-discriminatory good faith personnel action– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– The good faith personnel action exemption is meant to furnish an employer a degree of freedom in making its regular and routine personnel decisions (such as discipline, work evaluation, transfer, demotion, layoff, or termination). If the regular and routine personnel decision is made and carried out with subjective good faith and the employer's conduct meets the objective reasonableness standard, the 3208.3 exemption applies. City of Oakland v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (David Gullet) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,195

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– Gossip that occurred in the workplace involving acts and occurrences in applicant's personal life, which occurred off the job, does not arise out of the employment and therefore are not actual events of employment within the meaning of Labor Code §3208.3. Atascadero Unified School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Carrie Geredes) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,179

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code 3208.3– Labor Code §3208.3 specifically addresses the procedures for determining compensability of psychiatric injury claims only. (See Department of Corrections v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.(Garcia) (1999) 76 Cal.App. 4th 810, 1 WCAB Rptr. 10,148.) Verizon/GTE v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Frances Garth) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,171

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.1– In assessing whether an applicant has in fact experienced workplace stress, the test is a subject test not an objective test. The relevant assessment is the amount of stress inherent in the particular employment (i.e., the question is not how much stress should have been felt by a "normal" employee in that work environment); rather, the relevant assessment is how much stress the particular employment in fact exerted on the particular applicant (i.e., how much stress was felt by the individual applicant uniquely reacting to his or her work environment. (See Lamb v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274; Albertson's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bradley) (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 308; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Conway) (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 778.) County of Kern v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (James Craig) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,150

PSYCHIATIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– The compensability threshold established by Labor Code §3208.3(b)(1) applies to any claim for psychiatric injury, whether or not it is related to a compensable physical injury. Lockheed Martin v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Virginia McCullough) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,100

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– Actual events of employment must be predominant cause– Is gossip that occurred in the workplace involving acts and occurrences in applicant's personal life, which occurred off the job, an actual event of employment within the meaning of Labor Code §3208.3? Atascadero Unified School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Carrie Geredes) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,087

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Actual events of the workplace include applicant's perception of and subjective response to workplace events, though it does not include the product of a delusion or a mere "hook" upon which to attach causation on for non work-related problems. (See Albertson's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bradley) 1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 308.) Facey Medical Group v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Eva Perez) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,071

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Stress related physical injury– Labor Code §3208.3 – The threshold of compensability provisions of Labor Code §3208.3 apply only to psychiatric injuries and not to stress-related physical injuries. A stress gastro-intestinal injury such as irritable bowel syndrome is not covered by Labor Code §3208.3. ADT Security Systems, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Kenneth Stanley) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,060

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good faith personnel action defense– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– The analysis of the compensability of this psychiatric injury claim was properly conducted pursuant to the four-prong test mandated by the en ban decision in Rolda v. Pitney Bowles (2001) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,096. The multi-level analysis when the good faith personnel action defense is raised involves: (1) Determination whether actual events of employment are involved; (2) Determination of psychiatric injury based on competent medical evidence; (3) Determination as to whether any of the actual events of employment are personnel actions and if so whether any of them are lawful, non-discriminatory, good faith personnel actions; and (4) If any lawful, non-discriminatory, good faith personnel actions were determined to have contributed to9 the injury, medical evidence is required to determine whether such personnel actions are a substantial cause, 35 to 40 percent, of the injury. Charter Oak Unified School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (David Zink) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,028

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Lawful, non-discriminatory good faith personnel action– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– Was the notice or reduction in force in this case given in good faith, i.e., in a manner lacking outrageous conduct, honest and with a sincere purpose and without intent to mislead, deceive or defraud and without collusion or an unlawful design? City of Oakland v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (David Gullet) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,352

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– When a claim for compensation is filed after notice of termination of employment or layoff, and the claim is for psychiatric injury occurring prior to the time of the notice of termination or lay off, the employee must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all caused combined of the psychiatric injury and sudden and extraordinary events of employment were the cause of injury. Barbara Murad v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Kaiser Permanente Medical Group 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,287

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Sudden and extraordinary events of employment– Labor Code §3208.3– Sudden and extraordinary employment conditions are something other than normal, regular, or routine exchanges between employees and the employer, in the context of either personnel actions or general comments or criticism on work practices by an employee. Barbara Murad v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Kaiser Permanente Medical Group 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,287

PSYCHIARTIC INJURY– Objective standard used to determine sudden and extraordinary employment condition– The issue of sudden and extraordinary condition of employment referred to in Labor Code §3208.5(d) must include consideration of an objective approach, i.e., whether the "reasonable person" would find the employment event or encounter to at issue to be sudden and extraordinary in terms of employment conditions. Barbara Murad v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Kaiser Permanente Medical Group 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,287

PSYCHIARTIC INJURY– Good faith personnel action defense– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– The defense of a good faith personnel action must be specifically raised or it is waived. (see Mutual Protection Trust v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Joseph) (1999) 64 Cal.Comp.Cases 1110 (writ den.); Robinson's May Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cruz) (1998) 64 Cal.Comp.Cases 120 (writ den.).) Los Angeles Unified School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Herbert Henry) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,278

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Burden of proof– When there is a question of whether a psychiatric condition is casually related to workplace stress, proof in the form of both lay testimony and expert medical evidence is requires. (See IINA v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kemp) (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905.) The lay testimony must credibly establish that the employment environment was in fact stressful. (See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Conway) (1983) 141 Ca.App.3d 778.). The medical evidence must establish that he employment stress, where it actually existed, was a contributing cause to disability or need for treatment. (Montyk v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.(1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 334.) Kitty Kwong v. 'Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Kemper National Insurance Company 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,277

PSYCHIARTIC INJURY– Good Faith personnel action– Labor Code §3208.3(h) – In determining whether an employer's personnel action was taken in good faith, an objective standard is required to be applied by the trier of fact. The rier of fact must determine whether the employer acted reasonable and in conformity with prevailing social norms in deciding to terminate an employee for misconduct. Jane Dutro v. Workers' Coimpensation Appeals Board, City of Carson 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,261

PSYCHIARTIC INJURY– Doctrine of Compensable Consequences– If the injured worker's psychiatric condition is a direct consequence or symptom of a physical injury and not an independent or separate psychiatric injury claim, the causation provision of Labor Code §3208.3 do not apply. (See County of Monterey v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,257.) Frederick Wertz v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Waremart, Fremont Compensation Insurance. 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,151

PSYCHIARTIC INJURY– The substantial medical evidence in this case supported a finding that the injured worker's psychiatric condition was non-industrial. [The medical evidence showed that conflicts in his personal life and his pre-existing depressive disorder were responsible for his psychiatric condition and not his academic difficulties in his pursuit of vocational rehabilitation.] Frederick Wertz v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Waremart, Fremont Compensation Insurance. 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,151

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good faith personnel action defense– Labor Code 3208.3(h) – In this case the medical evidence supported a finding that applicant's transfer to an undesirable work assignment was substantial cause of applicant's psychiatric injury. The transfer was a personnel action, which was made in good faith, was not discriminatory or illegal. (See, Larch(Fleming) v. Contra Costa County (1998) 63 Cal.Comp.Cases 831 [Significant Panel Decision]. Marilyn Townsend v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, State of California, Department of Corrections. 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,154

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3(b)(1)– Actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury. (See Sakotas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App. 4th 262, 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,172.) Los Angeles Unified School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Magdelina Ramirez) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,152

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good faith personnel action– Labor Code §3208.3(h) – What constitutes a personnel action depends on the subject matter and the setting of each case. A personnel action is conduct either by or attributable to management and includes such things as done by one who has authority to review, criticize, emote or discipline an employee. Los Angeles Unified School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Magdelina Ramirez) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,152

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good Faith Personnel Actions– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– In this case the injured worker was subjected to a continuing course of conduct causing undue stress and this conduct went well beyond good faith personnel actions. El Rancho Unified School District v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (Elvira Torres) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,141

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– The causation provisions of Labor Code §3208.3 [actual events of employment must be predominant as to all causes combined] do not apply to a psychiatric disability that is a compensable consequence of a physical injury.

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Compensable consequence of a physical injury– The medical reports addressing the applicant's claim of psychiatric injury as a compensable consequence of a physical injury should etermine whetgher the physical injury was a contributing cause not a predominant cause of the psychiatric injury.

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Labor Code §3208.3– The evidence in this case supported a finding of an industrial psychiatric injury in the form of an AIDS phobia suffered by a police officer. [There was medical evidence that the applicant was pre-disposed to be phobic as a result of early childhood conflicts but that actual events of employment as a police officer let up this dormant pre-disposition.] City of Newport Beach v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Robert Barkschat) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,125

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good faith personnel action– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– The medical evidence was that the applicant had developed physical and emotional symptoms [diagnosed with anxiety disorder and depression] when the pay structure changed, sales quotas were increased, and applicant's supervisor tried to make the injured worker accept a lower paying position. These actions did not constitute a good faith personnel action. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Companies v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Pamela Brodsky) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,090

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– Good faith personnel action– Labor Code §3208.3(h)– The WCJ can properly consider evidence showing the injury was caused by a lawful, non- discriminatory, good faith personnel action, even though the claim for injury had not been timely denied under Labor Code §5402. (See Insalaco v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 1 WCAB Rptr. 10,138 (writ denied).) Raymond Lopez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, California Department of Transportation. 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,059

PSYCHATRIC INJURY– Required protocols for diagnosis– Labor Code 139.2(j)(4)– Statutory law mandates that psychiatric examiners diagnose an injured worker's condition using terminology and criteria of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised (DSM-III-R). The DSM-III-R provides five axes for diagnosing mental disorders. The protocols require the examiner to provide diagnoses in all cases under Axis I and Axis II and when appropriate a diagnosis under Axis III. Marriott International Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Alicia Orduno) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,262

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY–Labor Code §3208.3(h)–Good-faith personnel action–A personnel action under Labor Code §3208.3(h) contemplates activities generally deemed to be adverse to an injured worker's interest. It is not necessary for the personnel action to have a direct or immediate effect on employment status. SAV MAX Foods and Springfield Insurance Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Richard Thayer) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,275

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY–Labor Code §3208.3–In this case involving a 1993 date of injury, the WCAB panel granted reconsideration and found that applicant had sustained a compensable psychiatric injury despite significant pre-existing nonindustrial psychiatric injury. Southern California Permanente Medical Group v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Michele Graham) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,290