What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was physically assaulted at work on January 22, 2021 by a psychiatric patient.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This violent act was found to be a substantial cause (35-40%) of applicant's psychiatric injury and need for medical care.
From the decision · page 2The facts surrounding the specific injury on January 22, 2021 are not in dispute,
and appear in the history provided to the Qualified Medical Evaluator: Applicant
was performing his usual and customary occupation as a psychiatric nurse for the
male acute unit when a patient came up to him in an aggressive manner. There was
Plexiglas between them, and he told the patient to calm down. This patient was
apparently disrupting the unit, and in response the applicant told patient that he might
be placed in a quiet room.
QME Dr. Tribble opined that the physical assault caused 40% of applicant's psychiatric disability and need for medical care.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The WCJ relied on this medical opinion as substantial evidence to meet the causation standard under Labor Code section 3208.3.
From the decision · page 3The parties presented the question of industrial causation to the qualified medical
examiner, Dr. Tribble. The QME provided a report, and his deposition was taken.
Here are the relevant portions of the doctor's opinion regarding causation:
Applicant's psychiatric injuries result at least 35 to 40% from the violent physical assault sustained at work.
Favours Applicant prevailed
No evidence was provided to contradict applicant's history or the QME's opinion, supporting the finding of industrial causation.
From the decision · page 7The issue of applicant's credibility is raised for the first time in defendant's current
petition for reconsideration. Petitioner attempts through various arguments to cast
applicant as an unreliable witness. However, the WCJ finds nothing in any of these
arguments to cast doubt upon applicant's history of injury as provided to the
qualified medical evaluator. Applicant was attacked and violently beaten to the
point where he had to be taken to the hospital. Petitioner presents several arguments
in an attempt to cast doubt on applicant's credibility, but has provided no evidence
to support any of these arguments....
Applicant was violently attacked and beaten by a psychiatric patient while
performing his job. This fact is not in dispute. The qualified medical evaluator has
opined that physical injury sustained on January 22, 2021 was the direct cause of
applicant's psychiatric injury and the cause of the cumulative trauma thereafter. The
QME explained that the specific injury "lit the fuse" for the events at work after the
injury that constitute the cumulative trauma.......
The unrebutted evidence submitted at trial supports a finding that applicant's
psychiatric injuries result at least 35 to 40% from the violent physical assault that
he sustained. No evidence was provided to the contrary.
(Report, pp. 2-4.)
The cumulative trauma injury arose from applicant being a victim of a violent act and was at least 35% caused by industrial factors.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This finding made the cumulative injury compensable under Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(2)(3).
From the decision · page 6It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the physical assault applicant sustained
in the specific injury is, in part, a cause of the cumulative trauma. Therefore, the
WCJ finds that the cumulative trauma injury arose from applicant being the victim
of a violent act. Pursuant to labor code section 3208.3(b)(2) and (3), applicant has
provided substantial evidence that this injury is at least 35% caused by industrial
factors. Applicant has therefore met his burden of proving industrial causation
pursuant to labor code section 3208.3.
(Opinion on Decision, pp. 3-8.)