ADJ15175189 · June 19, 2025

The Board found insufficient evidence to determine whether the psyche injury arose out of and in the course of employment with both JITB and TBS, noting the need for further development of the record to clarify employment periods and injury causation.

From the decision · page 5Confronted with medical and testimonial evidence appearing to indicate that neither applicant nor the QME seems to have believed that applicant's psyche injury had any significant relationship to her employment for TBS, we therefore believe it was incumbent on the WCJ to defer the determination of whether applicant sustained any psyche injury AOE/COE, pending resolution of the issue raised by that testimony.

Applicant's testimony indicated that her psychological symptoms were related to her employment with JITB but not with TBS.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This testimony raised questions about whether the psyche injury arose during employment with both employers, necessitating further record development.

From the decision · page 2Applicant was the only witness to testify. As relevant to the Petition, applicant testified that she worked first for JITB, then at the franchise, where she is currently employed and continues to work full-time. (Id. at pp. 4§ 5.) She also testified that her psychological claim was based on behavior by a manager at JITB; she gets along well with everyone at the franchise and has not had any problems there. (Id. at p. 5§ 6.) She blamed her emotional and stress problems on her relationship with the JITB supervisor, although that was "not the only reason for stress and emotional issues." (Id. at pp. 6§ 7.)

The parties stipulated that applicant's employment with JITB and TBS was concurrent, but the record showed employment was sequential, not concurrent.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This discrepancy undermined the clarity of the finding of injury AOE/COE against both employers.

From the decision · page 5To that end, we note that the stipulation of the parties that applicant's employment with JITB and TBS was "concurrent" appears at least questionable applicant's testimony appears to show employment first with JITB and then subsequently with TBS, although the record does not appear to contain any clear dates as to when applicant's period of employment with JITB ended, or when her period of employment with TBS began. Nor does the F&O, the Opinion on Decision, or the Report appear to include any clear references to the period of injurious exposure for

Provided substantial medical evidence supporting the finding of a psyche injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

From the decision · page 2On March 26, 2025, the WCJ issued the F&O, finding in relevant part that applicant sustained a psyche injury AOE/COE "during the period January 6, 2023 through July 3, 2021... while employed... by [JITB]... and concurrently by [TBS]." (F&O, at p. 1., § 1.) The WCJ also found that Dr. Johnson's medical reporting was substantial medical evidence to support this judgement, but that the reporting of Dr. Hajj on the orthopedic complaints was not substantial medical evidence, and therefore that further development of the record was required to determine whether applicant suffered injuries AOE/COE to her other body parts. The appended Opinion on Decision focused primarily on the alleged orthopedic injuries, and mentioned only in passing the psyche claim, without considering whether the evidence supported a finding of AOE/COE against both JITB And TBS.

Medical reporting on orthopedic complaints was not found to be substantial medical evidence, requiring further development of the record.

From the decision · page 2On March 26, 2025, the WCJ issued the F&O, finding in relevant part that applicant sustained a psyche injury AOE/COE "during the period January 6, 2023 through July 3, 2021... while employed... by [JITB]... and concurrently by [TBS]." (F&O, at p. 1., § 1.) The WCJ also found that Dr. Johnson's medical reporting was substantial medical evidence to support this judgement, but that the reporting of Dr. Hajj on the orthopedic complaints was not substantial medical evidence, and therefore that further development of the record was required to determine whether applicant suffered injuries AOE/COE to her other body parts. The appended Opinion on Decision focused primarily on the alleged orthopedic injuries, and mentioned only in passing the psyche claim, without considering whether the evidence supported a finding of AOE/COE against both JITB And TBS.

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473

A decision must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence; the WCJ must clearly designate the evidence forming the basis of the decision.

The WCJ's opinion on decision must refer specifically to an adequate and completely developed record.

From the decision · page 4The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].) A decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, at p. 478), and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952, subd. (d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

Labor Code section 5909

Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board under Labor Code section 5909.

The Board timely acted on the petition within the 60-day period.

From the decision · page 3Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

Applicant's testimony that her psychological symptoms were caused by interactions with a supervisor at JITB and that she had no psychological issues at TBS.

From the decision · page 2Applicant was the only witness to testify. As relevant to the Petition, applicant testified that she worked first for JITB, then at the franchise, where she is currently employed and continues to work full-time. (Id. at pp. 4§ 5.) She also testified that her psychological claim was based on behavior by a manager at JITB; she gets along well with everyone at the franchise and has not had any problems there. (Id. at p. 5§ 6.) She blamed her emotional and stress problems on her relationship with the JITB supervisor, although that was "not the only reason for stress and emotional issues." (Id. at pp. 6§ 7.)