What the panel ordered
May 10, 2023 Findings and Order rescinded; case returned to trial level for further development and new decision by WCJ.
Petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order of May 10, 2023 granted; May 10, 2023 F&O rescinded and case returned to trial level for further proceedings and new decision.
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.
The WCJ did not properly apply the Rolda analysis sequence, particularly failing to establish industrial causation before addressing lawful personnel actions, leading to rescission and remand for proper application and further development of the record.
From the decision · page 1Applicant filed a petition seeking reconsideration, or, alternatively, removal, of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order and Opinion on Decision (F&O) of May 10, 2023, wherein it was found that, while employed as a plant supervisor between the period June 6, 2019 to March 13, 2020, applicant experienced five actual events of employment that may have contributed to his alleged psychiatric injury (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1)), that three of said events were lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(h)), and that two of the events contained some non-industrial factors that contributed to applicant's "psychiatric diagnosis." The WCJ also ordered the parties to serve the panel qualified medial evaluator (QME), psychologist Kevin J. McCullough, Ph.D., with the Minutes of Hearing and Summaries of Evidence (MOH/SOEs) produced during trial, and ordered Dr. McCullough to issue a supplemental medical-legal report determining: 1) whether applicant had a psychiatric diagnosis under the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, and, if so, 2) whether applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by industrial or non-industrial factors.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
WCJ failed to properly apply Rolda analysis sequence, addressing lawful personnel actions before establishing industrial causation.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This procedural error led to rescission of the May 10, 2023 F&O and remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 6After identifying five actual events of employment, the WCJ found that three of these events constituted lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. (F&O, p. 5.) In doing so, however, the WCJ ignored the required sequence of the Rolda analysis. Under Rolda, after the WCJ determines that an alleged psychiatric injury involves actual events of employment, the WCJ must determine "whether competent medical evidence establishes the required percentage of industrial causation," i.e., injury AOE/COE. (Cardozo, supra; Rolda, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at pp. 245-247; Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1).) The reason for this sequence of analysis is as follows: If there is no industrial injury, there is no liability and no need to determine whether any of the events were lawful, nondiscriminatory good faith personnel actions, which is an affirmative defense to liability that must be raised by the defendant to be considered.
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.
Predominant cause of mood disorder was emotional sequelae to undue supervisor harassment during cumulative trauma period March 13, 2014 to June 6, 2019.
The QME's opinion on causation was ordered to be supplemented and considered in the Rolda analysis by the WCJ and WCAB.
From the decision · page 3The panel QME, Dr. McCullough, initially evaluated applicant on October 22, 2020. In a report dated November 20, 2020, Dr. McCullough discussed the causes of applicant's alleged psychiatric injury, stating, in pertinent part:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc)
WCJ must determine actual events of employment, industrial causation, lawful personnel actions, and their substantial cause in sequence.
From the decision · page 4Labor Code section 3208.32 states that in order to establish industrial causation of a psychiatric injury, i.e., psychiatric injury AOE/COE, an injured worker must show by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment predominantly caused the psychological injury.3 (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1).) However, it also provides that a claim for psychiatric injury will not be compensable if an employer proves that the psychiatric injury was substantially caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(h).)4
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony about multiple specific interactions with supervisor involving name-calling and profanity, causing stress impacting home life.
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.