What the panel ordered
The panel denied Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and affirmed the WCJ's Findings of Fact that actual events of employment were the predominant cause of Applicant's psychiatric injury, sustaining compensability under Labor Code section 3208.3(b).
Defendant sought reconsideration of the June 3, 2022 Findings of Fact regarding psychiatric injury causation; WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation to deny the Petition for Reconsideration; the panel reviewed and issued a Decision After Reconsideration affirming the WCJ's findings.
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 WCJ's credibility determination was given great weight, supported by QME Dr. Nataliya Belfor's report attributing 60% causation to an actual employment event, and the panel found the evidence supported that actual events of employment were the predominant cause of the psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 3Additionally, the WCJ heard and weighed the testimony adduced at trial. The WCJ gave due consideration "to the credibility of all witness testimony including observations of the demeanor and expressions of the witnesses," and concluded that "[a]pplicant's testimony was credible and more persuasive." (Report, at p. 4.) We have given the WCJ's credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness(es). (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination(s). (Ibid.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
QME Dr. Nataliya Belfor attributed 60% causation of psychiatric injury to an actual employment event involving Deputy Brooks and the holding tank.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This exceeded the statutory predominance threshold of 51%, supporting compensability.
From the decision · page 13Dr. Belfor attributed 60% causation to this employment event, which exceeds the threshold for predominant cause.
The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible and more persuasive than defense witnesses, giving great weight to the credibility determination.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility of testimony was crucial to establishing that actual events of employment were the predominant cause of injury.
From the decision · page 3Additionally, the WCJ heard and weighed the testimony adduced at trial. The WCJ gave due consideration "to the credibility of all witness testimony including observations of the demeanor and expressions of the witnesses," and concluded that "[a]pplicant's testimony was credible and more persuasive." (Report, at p. 4.) We have given the WCJ's credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness(es). (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination(s). (Ibid.)
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Determined applicant's report of employment events was supported by testing data and mental status examination; attributed 60% causation of psychiatric injury to an incident involving Deputy Brooks and the holding tank, exceeding the 51% predominance threshold.
Supports finding that actual events of employment were the predominant cause of psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 3Here, QME Nataliya Belfor, Ph.D. has completed a comprehensive medical-legal evaluation of applicant, and determined that applicant's report of the events of employment "is supported by the testing data, by the observations of the examinee during the evaluation, and by the results of mental status examination." (Ex. AA, report of QME Nataliya Belfor, Ph.D., dated November 13, 2020, p. 12.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3208.3(b)
Labor Code section 3208.3(b) requires that actual events of employment be the predominant cause of psychiatric injury for compensability.
Applied to determine compensability of psychiatric injury based on causation by actual employment events.
From the decision · page 2The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a); 3202.5.) With respect to psychiatric injuries, section 3208.3 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Credibility of applicant's testimony and demeanor observations by WCJ
From the decision · page 3Additionally, the WCJ heard and weighed the testimony adduced at trial. The WCJ gave due consideration "to the credibility of all witness testimony including observations of the demeanor and expressions of the witnesses," and concluded that "[a]pplicant's testimony was credible and more persuasive." (Report, at p. 4.) We have given the WCJ's credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness(es). (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination(s). (Ibid.)
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.