ADJ10774501 · October 10, 2022

The WCJ properly deferred the section 132a claim and temporary disability issues as interlocutory matters, and the Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.

From the decision · page 4All remaining issues including the 132a claim, as well as the EDD lien and the TD issues are deferred at this time with WCAB jurisdiction reserved in the event the parties are not able to resolve these issues amongst themselves.

The record showed a need for future medical treatment for the industrial injuries including psyche, left shoulder, and left wrist.

From the decision · page 23. There is a need for future medical treatment to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injuries to applicant's right shoulder, right elbow, and right wrist, psyche, left shoulder, and left wrist.

The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to multiple body parts including psyche, left shoulder, and left wrist, supported by credible testimony and medical evidence. The Board upheld these findings and rejected additional injury claims not presented at trial.

From the decision · page 21. the applicant, [birth date redacted], while employed on 8/3/2016, as an electrician, Occupational Group Number 380, at San Francisco, California, by Fisk Electric, a Tutor Perini company, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her right shoulder, right elbow, and right wrist, psyche, left shoulder, and left wrist.

The orthopedic AME Dr. Renbaum's report constituted substantial evidence supporting a 23% permanent disability rating. The psychiatric injury did not increase the permanent disability rating due to statutory limitations.

From the decision · page 4This Court has carefully read all of the medical legal evidence that has been properly admitted into evidence in this case. After careful consideration of the record, this Court believes that the analysis and conclusions of the orthopedic AME Dr. Renbaum taken as a whole constitute substantial medical evidence on the issue of permanent disability.

Applicant worked for the employer more than 6 months, satisfying the requirement for psychiatric injury claim under LC 3208.3(d).

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact allowed the Board to find the psychiatric injury industrially compensable.

From the decision · page 3However, Applicant credibly testified at trial that although she was hired in July of 2016, she was not terminated from employment until 4/6/2017 as follows:

The orthopedic AME Dr. Renbaum's report provided substantial medical evidence supporting a 23% permanent disability rating.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The Board relied on this report to affirm the permanent disability rating.

From the decision · page 4This Court has carefully read all of the medical legal evidence that has been properly admitted into evidence in this case. After careful consideration of the record, this Court believes that the analysis and conclusions of the orthopedic AME Dr. Renbaum taken as a whole constitute substantial medical evidence on the issue of permanent disability.

The WCJ's deferral of the section 132a claim and temporary disability issues was within authority and did not cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This supported denial of removal and upheld the deferral.

From the decision · page 6A WCJ has broad authority to issue orders to ensure proper adjudication of each claim, including "any interim, interlocutory and final orders, findings, decisions and awards as may be necessary to the full adjudication of the case." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10330.) This includes the authority to defer issues that the trier of fact determines are not ripe for adjudication. (See e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787(a) [the WCJ may bifurcate the issues for trial and try them separately upon a showing of good cause].) It was consequently within the WCJ's authority to defer the issues of applicant's section 132a claim and the EDD lien.

Concluded applicant sustained 23% permanent disability for orthopedic injuries.

From the decision · page 4This Court has carefully read all of the medical legal evidence that has been properly admitted into evidence in this case. After careful consideration of the record, this Court believes that the analysis and conclusions of the orthopedic AME Dr. Renbaum taken as a whole constitute substantial medical evidence on the issue of permanent disability.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)

Labor Code section 3208.3(d) bars psychiatric injury claims if employment is less than 6 months.

Applicant was found to have worked more than 6 months, so psychiatric injury claim was allowed.

From the decision · page 3LC 3208.3(d) bars applicant from claiming a psychiatric industrial injury if she has worked for the employer for less than 6 months. These 6 months need not be continuous. Defendant argues that applicant has not met this 6-month rule since she was hired on 7/8/2016 and she was injured on 8/3/2016, after only a little over one month of employment.

Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(1)

Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(1) limits permanent disability ratings for psychiatric injuries post 1/1/2013 but allows medical treatment.

Applicant was not entitled to increased permanent disability for psychiatric injury but was entitled to medical treatment.

From the decision · page 3"... the [permanent disability] impairment ratings for... psychiatric disorder, arising out of a compensable physical injury shall not increase."

California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 10330 and 10787(a)

WCJ has broad authority to defer interlocutory issues including section 132a claims and temporary disability.

The WCJ properly deferred these issues as interlocutory matters without causing significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 6A WCJ has broad authority to issue orders to ensure proper adjudication of each claim, including "any interim, interlocutory and final orders, findings, decisions and awards as may be necessary to the full adjudication of the case." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10330.) This includes the authority to defer issues that the trier of fact determines are not ripe for adjudication. (See e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787(a) [the WCJ may bifurcate the issues for trial and try them separately upon a showing of good cause].) It was consequently within the WCJ's authority to defer the issues of applicant's section 132a claim and the EDD lien.

Applicant's credible testimony at trial regarding employment duration and injury to additional body parts

From the decision · page 3However, Applicant credibly testified at trial that although she was hired in July of 2016, she was not terminated from employment until 4/6/2017 as follows: