New Standard of Interpretation of Section 3208.3 (b) (1)
- Posted By: Harvey Brown
- February 1, 2008
This is a significant decision involving a claim for psychiatric injury involving harassment.
The applicant filed a workers’compensation claim alleging harassment. The applicant alleged that the supervisor and other employees had harassed her and persecuted her. The supervisor and other employees recalled conditions much differently than the applicant perceived them.
The applicant was the one that was allegedly rude and inflexible with other employees. There was testimony from multiple employees as to the applicant’s behavior.
The case went to trial before a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ). The WCJ found the applicant did not meet the burden under Labor Code section 3208.3 in that these events were not “actual events of employment” that were the “predominant cause” of her problems. She was not the subject of harassment or persecution but brought the disdain of fellow workers on herself. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) agreed on review.
The appellate court indicated that the applicant cannot recover under the facts of this case. They reviewed 3208.3 (b) (1) and (h) They indicated that “disdainful reactions” of a supervisor and co-workers do not constitute “actual events of employment” in this fact pattern. There must be an “event”, “something that takes place”. It also must arise “out of the working relationship”.
The Court reviewed the higher standard for compensability that was established by the legislature in adopting 3208 and will generally not allow the applicants perception standing alone.
- Posted In: Harassment
En Banc Decision of the WCAB on Wilkinson V WCAB 19 Cal.3d 491
- Posted By: Harvey Brown
- January 1, 2008
This is a significant decision from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).
The WCAB evaluated a case under SB 899 as to how the former Supreme Court case Wilkinson v WCAB applied.
The applicant filed two cases. One for a specific injury of June 3, 2003. The other injury filed was for a cumulative trauma ending June 3, 2003. There was an Agreed Medical Examiner in the case that indicated the applicant sustained two separate injuries to her neck. The doctor apportioned 50% to the cumulative trauma and 50% to the specific. Both injuries became permanent and stationary at the time of the evaluation on the same date.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found the applicant had a single award based on the combined disability of the two injuries at 62%. The defendant appealed indicating under SB899 the WCJ has to apportion to each injury and that SB899 abrogated the Wilkinson rule.
The WCAB heard the case en banc and wrote a very lengthy decision of 29 pages. They reviewed applicable statutes and case law. They indicated that the rule in Wilkinson is antithetical to the new causation regime in the current law of apportionment.
The WCAB indicated that in successive injury cases you must apportion to each injury. Wilkinson is not consistent with Labor Code section 4663 and 4664. However, they left a big loophole. If the physician is unable to determine based on reasonable medical probability then there will only be one award. The physician might also determine that all of the disability is due to one of the successive injuries. Thus, each case will now be on a case by case basis revolving around the factual issues and whether the physician is able to apportion to each successive injury.
- Posted In: Work Injury