What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
WCJ failed to analyze all alleged employment events and their causation under Labor Code section 3208.3 and Rolda.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure prevented proper determination of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to psyche.
From the decision · page 4In this case, the WCJ failed to properly perform the analysis set forth in section 3208.3 and
as described in Rolda. First, the WCJ failed to find whether applicant's alleged psychiatric injury
involved actual events of employment, i.e., injury AOE/COE, under section 3208.3(b)(1). In
making this determination, the WCJ must go through all of the predicate events alleged in the
history given to the QME(s), as well as the trial testimony and all other relevant record evidence.
To the extent that any of the predicate events are contradicted, the WCJ should make express
factual findings regarding each event and resolve any factual disputes. The WCJ should then
determine which of the predicate events constitute actual events of employment and articulate this
determination in a manner that satisfies sections 5313, 3208.3, Rolda,3 and Hamilton v. Lockheed
Corp. (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Board en banc).4
WCJ's credibility findings were flawed as defense witnesses' inability to recall events did not refute applicant's claims.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility assessment impacted the determination of actual events of employment for psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 5At this juncture, we find it important to note that, in assessing whether an applicant has
demonstrated an actual event of employment, the WCJ is clearly entitled to take the applicant's
credibility into account. However, we are somewhat concerned with the WCJ's conclusion that
applicant failed to provide a credible work history because he could not recall "exactly" when each
event occurred and because his testimony was "refuted" by the testimony of defense witnesses
who stated that they could not remember certain events at all. (Opinion on Decision, pp. 4-5.)
Applicant argues, and we agree, that the defense witnesses' inability to recall the events in question
does not "refute" applicant's claim that said events occurred, nor does it necessarily undermine
applicant's credibility regarding these events.
Dr. Hyman's QME report lacked sufficient causation analysis and was not substantial evidence for hypertension causation.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Insufficient medical evidence prevented proper determination of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to circulatory system and hypertension.