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.)