ADJ16432899 · August 25, 2025

The WCJ found no specific injury on April 12, 2022, as the events described were ongoing cumulative trauma rather than a single incident. The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed and granted reconsideration for further review.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the June 13, 2025 Findings of Facts and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in Case No. ADJ16432899. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain a specific injury arising out of or in the course of her employment to her psyche while employed as a psychologist on April 12, 2022. Based on these findings, the WCJ order that applicant take nothing.

The WCJ found no evidence of a single incident or exposure causing the psychiatric injury on April 12, 2022.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This finding led to the conclusion that there was no specific injury compensable under the law.

From the decision · page 6But the fact remains that the actual events of employment do not produce any evidence of a "single incident or exposure." Hence there is no specific injury. Petitioners claim that the physician can determine legal issues or even have any knowledge of the legal definitions involved is unsound.

Dr. Weiss's medical opinion was unclear and indicated the injury was due to an accumulation of stressors rather than a single incident.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This undermined the claim of a specific injury and supported the WCJ's finding.

From the decision · page 4Dr. Weiss' depo was taken on 8/21/2024 (Ex. Z). She expresses confusion as to dates of injury. She notes that 4 claims are pled. She is only aware of 3. She testifies that the events of employment were the predominant cause of a specific injury of 4/12/2022 (p.10). But under defense questioning she admits that the "injury" is the result of "an accumulation of everything." She admits that what occurred on or about 4/12/2022 was described as the relationship with Dr. Staufenberg, but as to what happened on that very day she states, "I'm not sure what incident that was." On p.15 Dr. Weiss agrees that simply some days are more stressful than others. Dr. Weiss agrees that eventually as of 4/12/2022 Applicant hit the "straw that breaks the back."

The record was not sufficiently developed to support the WCJ's decision without further review and consolidation of related claims.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This justified the Appeals Board's grant of reconsideration to allow further study and a just decision.

From the decision · page 8Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that there is substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's decision without additional development of the record. In this case, the WCJ determined that there were actual events of employment that describe an ongoing cumulative trauma rather than a specific injury. Yet, because the only case set for trial involved an alleged specific injury in Case No. ADJ16432899 and not the three (3) other cases filed by applicant (Case Nos. ADJ16015921, ADJ12380250, and ADJ17195897), the question of a cumulative trauma was not reached. Thus, it appears that these cases should have been consolidated pursuant to WCAB Rule 10396.

Dr. Weiss perceived the work circumstances as injurious and characterized the events as a specific injury, but admitted confusion about the exact incident on April 12, 2022, and acknowledged the injury was the result of an accumulation of stressors.

Dr. Weiss's opinion was considered but found insufficient to establish a specific injury due to lack of clarity on a single incident and the cumulative nature of the stressors.

From the decision · page 4Dr. Weiss perceived these circumstances as injurious. The undersigned viewed the circumstances as constituting the actual events of employment. The testimony from the employer confirmed the events. Dr. Weiss characterized these events as a specific injury.

Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 3208.1

A specific psychiatric injury is defined as one incident or exposure causing disability or need for medical treatment under Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 3208.1.

The WCJ found no evidence of a single incident meeting this definition.

From the decision · page 5A specific injury is defined in Cal. Lab. Code sec. 3208.1 "as occurring as the result of one incident or exposure which causes disability or need for medical treatment...." (emphasis added).

Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 CCC 241, en banc

The WCJ must determine the actual events of employment and the predominant cause of injury under Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 CCC 241, en banc.

The WCJ determined the events were cumulative trauma, not a specific injury, consistent with Rolda's framework.

From the decision · page 5In cases of psychiatric injury, under Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 CCC 241, en banc, it is up to the WCJ to determine the actual events of employment. The physician must determine the predominant cause of injury.

Dr. Weiss's deposition testimony showed confusion about the exact date and nature of the injury, indicating the injury was cumulative rather than a single incident.

From the decision · page 4Dr. Weiss' depo was taken on 8/21/2024 (Ex. Z). She expresses confusion as to dates of injury. She notes that 4 claims are pled. She is only aware of 3. She testifies that the events of employment were the predominant cause of a specific injury of 4/12/2022 (p.10). But under defense questioning she admits that the "injury" is the result of "an accumulation of everything." She admits that what occurred on or about 4/12/2022 was described as the relationship with Dr. Staufenberg, but as to what happened on that very day she states, "I'm not sure what incident that was." On p.15 Dr. Weiss agrees that simply some days are more stressful than others. Dr. Weiss agrees that eventually as of 4/12/2022 Applicant hit the "straw that breaks the back."