ADJ14588 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the September 13, 2024 F&O, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the September 13, 2024 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) that denied her claim for injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The WCJ found applicant's testimony non-credible and denied the claim. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the F&O, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings due to inadequate analysis and lack of evidentiary citation in the WCJ's decision.

Read the official 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.

Psyche AOE/COERemandedpsyche · stomach · headaches

The WCJ found applicant's testimony non-credible and denied the claim, but the WCAB found the WCJ's decision lacked adequate analysis and evidentiary citation, warranting reconsideration and remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 13, 2024 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a building permit technician from August 5, 2019 to August 14, 2020, claims to have sustained industrial injury to her psyche, stomach, and in the form of headaches. The WCJ found that applicant did not sustain her burden of establishing injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE), and ordered that applicant take nothing further by way of her claim.

The facts that decided it

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

The WCJ's decision lacked adequate analysis and citation to evidentiary record, violating statutory requirements.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This procedural deficiency led the WCAB to rescind the F&O and remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 10Following our review of the entire record occasioned by applicant's Petition, we conclude that the F&O does not adequately set forth the basis for the WCJ's decision. Here, QME Dr. Tansman has evaluated applicant, administered diagnostic testing, and performed a complete record review. The QME's comprehensive medical-legal report details five separate factors which the QME relied upon in determining that applicant was credible. (Ex. 1, Report of Mara Tansman, Psy.D., dated January 26, 2021, at p. 41.) Moreover, it is not disputed that applicant sought and

The WCJ found applicant's testimony non-credible based on in-person observation at trial.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This credibility finding was the basis for denying the claim for injury AOE/COE.

From the decision · page 9Based upon Applicant's non-credible testimony, the testimony of defense witnesses and the medical reporting of Qualified Medical Evaluator Dr. Mara Tansman, PsyD, dated January 26, 2021 (Joint Ex. 1) it is found that Applicant did not sustain industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment causing injury to her psyche, stomach, and headaches during the period August 5, 2019, through August 14, 2020.

QME Mara Tansman found applicant credible based on psychological testing and consistent medical records.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The QME's detailed credibility and causation analysis supported the applicant's claim, undermining the WCJ's decision.

From the decision · page 8Dr. Tansman deferred to the trier-of-fact the question of whether "the applicant's report is accurate and whether what the applicant allegedly experienced is considered a hostile work environment." (Ibid.) However, Dr. Tansman also stated that she found applicant's history to be credible, and explained in detail her reasoning. Dr. Tansman noted that applicant "did not over or under-report her psychological symptoms on any of the psychological testing protocols." (Id. at p. 41.) Applicant "exhibited a stable demeanor throughout the evaluation and provided consistent, relevant and detailed information," and "did not display response patterns that were vague or contradictory, and she was engaged in the evaluation and willingly responded to everything requested of her." Applicant "showed no signs of exaggerated emotional symptoms over the course of a multi hour-long evaluation." (Ibid.) Dr. Tansman noted that "the mechanism of injury in this case (i.e. an alleged hostile work environment) is a psychosocial stressor that would cause concern and evoke symptoms of distress in most individuals and any reasonable employee." (Ibid.) Moreover, "the history Ms.

The rules the panel named

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

Lab. Code, 3208.3(b)(1)

In order 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.

The QME identified various employment events as contributing factors; the WCJ must assess whether these were actual events of employment and their causation percentages.

From the decision · page 12In so doing, we offer the following nonbinding guidance to the parties. We observe that section 3208.3(b)(1) requires that "[i]n order 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." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1).) We note that the QME reporting has identified various events of employment as contributing factors in the accretion of industrial stressors experienced by applicant during the claimed cumulative injury period. These factors include, but are not limited to, specific interactions between applicant and her coworkers, generalized workload stressors, and/or a perceived hostile work environment.

Lab. Code, 5313

The WCJ must make and file findings upon all facts involved and state the reasons for the determination, citing evidence relied upon.

The WCJ's decision lacked adequate analysis and citation to evidentiary record, violating this standard.

From the decision · page 10Section 5313 requires the appeals board and the WCJ to "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties," and further requires that "[t]ogether with the findings, decision, order or award there shall be served upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made."

Lab. Code, 5908.5

The Appeals Board must state the evidence relied upon and specify in detail the reasons for its decisions to assist review and avoid arbitrary action.

The WCJ's opinion did not adequately analyze the evidence or reasons, requiring the Appeals Board to remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 11Section 5908.5 requires that the appeals board state the evidence relied upon and specify in detail the reasons for its decisions. (Lab. Code, § 5908.5.) The California Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he purpose of the requirement that evidence be stated and reasons detailed... is to assist the reviewing court to ascertain the principles relied upon by the lower tribunal, to help that tribunal avoid careless or arbitrary action, and to make the right of appeal or of seeking review more meaningful." (Evans, supra, 68 Cal.2d 753, 755.)

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Defendant prevailed

Applicant's testimony was found non-credible by the WCJ based on in-person observation at trial.

From the decision · page 9Based upon Applicant's non-credible testimony, the testimony of defense witnesses and the medical reporting of Qualified Medical Evaluator Dr. Mara Tansman, PsyD, dated January 26, 2021 (Joint Ex. 1) it is found that Applicant did not sustain industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment causing injury to her psyche, stomach, and headaches during the period August 5, 2019, through August 14, 2020.

Medical recordsfavours Applicant prevailed

QME Mara Tansman found applicant credible based on psychological testing and consistent medical records.

From the decision · page 8Dr. Tansman deferred to the trier-of-fact the question of whether "the applicant's report is accurate and whether what the applicant allegedly experienced is considered a hostile work environment." (Ibid.) However, Dr. Tansman also stated that she found applicant's history to be credible, and explained in detail her reasoning. Dr. Tansman noted that applicant "did not over or under-report her psychological symptoms on any of the psychological testing protocols." (Id. at p. 41.) Applicant "exhibited a stable demeanor throughout the evaluation and provided consistent, relevant and detailed information," and "did not display response patterns that were vague or contradictory, and she was engaged in the evaluation and willingly responded to everything requested of her." Applicant "showed no signs of exaggerated emotional symptoms over the course of a multi hour-long evaluation." (Ibid.) Dr. Tansman noted that "the mechanism of injury in this case (i.e. an alleged hostile work environment) is a psychosocial stressor that would cause concern and evoke symptoms of distress in most individuals and any reasonable employee." (Ibid.) Moreover, "the history Ms.

ADJ14588 · December 23, 2024

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