ADJ11641128 · January 27, 2023

The Board found that the applicant sustained a compensable psychiatric injury arising out of and in the course of employment based on the unrebutted expert opinion of psychiatric QME Dr. Yatin Patel, who performed a Rolda analysis and attributed predominant causation to actual events of employment, with 45% due to harassment and hostile work environment and 30% due to personnel actions, which did not meet the threshold to bar compensation under Labor Code section 3208.3(h).

From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND Applicant claims to have sustained a psychiatric injury while employed by defendant as a Claims Adjustor during the period from October 25, 2017, through October 25, 2018 (ADJ11641129). Applicant also claims injury to her cervical spine and bilateral elbows while employed by defendant during the period from February 20, 2017, through February 20, 2018 (ADJ11641128). The Findings and Award regarding case number ADJ11641128 are not disputed and will not be addressed herein. On March 22, 2019, applicant was evaluated by psychiatric qualified medical examiner (QME) Yatin Patel, M.D. Dr. Patel interviewed applicant, took a history, reviewed the medical record, and conducted psychiatric testing. The diagnoses included: adjustment disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, in partial remission; Panic Disorder Without Agoraphobia, in partial remission; and a GAF (Global Assessment of Function) score of 78 [0% whole person impairment]. (Def. Exh. F, Yatin Patel, M.D., March 22, 2019, p. 30.) Dr. Patel discussed a "4 steps Rolda analysis" (Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc) (Rolda)) and then stated:

Dr. Patel's unrebutted expert opinion that actual events of employment were the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This opinion established compensability under Labor Code section 3208.3 and was adopted by the WCJ and Board.

From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND Applicant claims to have sustained a psychiatric injury while employed by defendant as a Claims Adjustor during the period from October 25, 2017, through October 25, 2018 (ADJ11641129). Applicant also claims injury to her cervical spine and bilateral elbows while employed by defendant during the period from February 20, 2017, through February 20, 2018 (ADJ11641128). The Findings and Award regarding case number ADJ11641128 are not disputed and will not be addressed herein. On March 22, 2019, applicant was evaluated by psychiatric qualified medical examiner (QME) Yatin Patel, M.D. Dr. Patel interviewed applicant, took a history, reviewed the medical record, and conducted psychiatric testing. The diagnoses included: adjustment disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, in partial remission; Panic Disorder Without Agoraphobia, in partial remission; and a GAF (Global Assessment of Function) score of 78 [0% whole person impairment]. (Def. Exh. F, Yatin Patel, M.D., March 22, 2019, p. 30.) Dr. Patel discussed a "4 steps Rolda analysis" (Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc) (Rolda)) and then stated:

Applicant's credible and compelling testimony corroborated the history provided to Dr. Patel and was not rebutted by defense witnesses.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the factual finding that the actual events of employment occurred, a necessary step in the Rolda analysis for compensability.

From the decision · page 9The first step in such a "Rolda" analysis is a factual one, determining whether actual events of employment are involved. As defendants' petition points out, this was not for Dr. Patel to determine, but for the workers' compensation judge to find. However, in this case, the opinion on decision did expressly indicate that "[t]he undersigned does believe those events cited by Dr. Patel as causes of applicant's injury actually occurred" (Joint Opinion on Decision dated October 28, 2022, p. 6, last two lines). Accordingly, it is clear from the opinion on decision that the undersigned found that all of the actual or alleged events of employment to which Dr. Patel attributed predominant causation of an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and panic disorder without agoraphobia actually did occur, as required under a Rolda analysis. Although it may not have been expressly stated in the opinion, this finding that the actual events of employment discussed by Dr. Patel actually happened was based upon consideration of applicant's credible and compelling testimony, which the testimony of defense witnesses was insufficient to rebut, with applicant's testimony corroborating the history provided to Dr. Patel.

Dr. Patel diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, panic disorder without agoraphobia, and found 0% whole person impairment. He performed a Rolda analysis attributing 45% of psychiatric injury causation to harassment and hostile work environment, 30% to personnel actions, and 25% to outside factors. He recommended further psychiatric treatment if the condition worsens.

Dr. Patel's report and Rolda analysis were unrebutted and adopted by the WCJ and Board as the basis for finding compensable psychiatric injury.

From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND Applicant claims to have sustained a psychiatric injury while employed by defendant as a Claims Adjustor during the period from October 25, 2017, through October 25, 2018 (ADJ11641129). Applicant also claims injury to her cervical spine and bilateral elbows while employed by defendant during the period from February 20, 2017, through February 20, 2018 (ADJ11641128). The Findings and Award regarding case number ADJ11641128 are not disputed and will not be addressed herein. On March 22, 2019, applicant was evaluated by psychiatric qualified medical examiner (QME) Yatin Patel, M.D. Dr. Patel interviewed applicant, took a history, reviewed the medical record, and conducted psychiatric testing. The diagnoses included: adjustment disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, in partial remission; Panic Disorder Without Agoraphobia, in partial remission; and a GAF (Global Assessment of Function) score of 78 [0% whole person impairment]. (Def. Exh. F, Yatin Patel, M.D., March 22, 2019, p. 30.) Dr. Patel discussed a "4 steps Rolda analysis" (Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc) (Rolda)) and then stated:

Labor Code section 3208.3

Labor Code section 3208.3

The Board applied the statutory requirements for compensability of psychiatric injury, including the predominance of actual events of employment and the good faith personnel action defense.

Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc)

Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc)

The Board applied the four-step Rolda analysis to determine compensability and the applicability of the good faith personnel action defense.

From the decision · page 3The WCJ, after considering all the medical evidence, and the other documentary and testimonial evidence of record, 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 which requires medical evidence; (3) if so, whether any of the actual employment events were personnel actions that were lawful, nondiscriminatory and in 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 which requires medical evidence. Of course, the WCJ must then articulate the basis for his or her findings in a decision which addresses all the relevant issues raised by the criteria set forth in Labor Code section 3208.3. (Rolda v. Pitney Bowes (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241, 247 (Appeals Board en banc) (Rolda).)

Applicant's credible and compelling testimony corroborated the history provided to Dr. Patel and was not rebutted by defense witnesses.

From the decision · page 9The first step in such a "Rolda" analysis is a factual one, determining whether actual events of employment are involved. As defendants' petition points out, this was not for Dr. Patel to determine, but for the workers' compensation judge to find. However, in this case, the opinion on decision did expressly indicate that "[t]he undersigned does believe those events cited by Dr. Patel as causes of applicant's injury actually occurred" (Joint Opinion on Decision dated October 28, 2022, p. 6, last two lines). Accordingly, it is clear from the opinion on decision that the undersigned found that all of the actual or alleged events of employment to which Dr. Patel attributed predominant causation of an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and panic disorder without agoraphobia actually did occur, as required under a Rolda analysis. Although it may not have been expressly stated in the opinion, this finding that the actual events of employment discussed by Dr. Patel actually happened was based upon consideration of applicant's credible and compelling testimony, which the testimony of defense witnesses was insufficient to rebut, with applicant's testimony corroborating the history provided to Dr. Patel.