What the panel ordered
Findings and Award of June 19, 2000, rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and decision consistent with this opinion.
Defendant's petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on June 19, 2000, was granted by the Board on September 11, 2000, and the case was reassigned for an en banc 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 Board concluded that a multilevel analysis is required to determine compensability of psychiatric injury when a good faith personnel action defense is raised, and the WCJ's prior decision did not comply with this analysis, requiring rescission and remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1I,,, As discussed below, we conclude that a multilevel analysis is required when a psychiatric l 26il I,I
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ did not apply the required multilevel analysis to determine compensability of the psychiatric injury under Labor Code section 3208.3(h).