What the panel ordered
WCAB granted defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirmed WCJ's finding of industrial injury to psyche, amended injury description, and deleted finding on substantiality of Dr. Baba Singh's reports.
Defendant sought reconsideration of WCJ's First Amended Findings of Fact dated February 6, 2026; WCAB timely acted on petition within 60 days of case transmission on March 30, 2026.
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 WCAB affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the psyche based on substantial medical evidence, including Dr. Nehorayan's opinion that the injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment, and rejected defendant's argument about DSM edition used for diagnosis.
From the decision · page 3Turning to the merits, the WCJ found industrial injury based on the reporting and testimony of primary treating physician Marc Nehorayan, M.D., who opined that applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment. We note that since applicant's injury resulted from being a victim of or direct exposure to a violent act a finding that defendant does not challenge it need only be proved the actual events of employment were a substantial cause of the injury. (Cal. Labor Code, § 3208.3, subd. (b)(2).)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained industrial injury to psyche while employed as a librarian on May 13, 2022, as a victim of a violent act or direct exposure to a significant violent act.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact established compensability under Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(2) and supported the finding of industrial injury.
From the decision · page 5FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, while employed on 5/13/22 as a librarian, occupational Group Number 214, at Burbank California, by City of Burbank, self-insured sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the psyche. 2. Applicant is a "victim of a violent act or from direct exposure to a significant violent act," under LC § 3208.3(b)(2).
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.
Diagnosed applicant's condition using DSM-V; opined applicant had pre-existing anxiety disorder but incident caused new treatment, temporary disability, and decreased GAF score; causation analysis questioned as possibly under improper legal standard.
Discussed diagnosis and causation under DSM-V and legal standards; causation analysis questioned by WCAB.
From the decision · page 3In fact, even Dr. Baba Singh, who defendant argues we should follow with regard to industrial causation, diagnosed the applicant's condition pursuant to the DSM-V (November 4, 2022 report at p. 10; Deposition of October 25, 2024 at p. 68) and testified that the DSM-V currently contains the standard diagnostic criteria. (Deposition of October 25, 2024 at pp. 83, 88.)
Opined applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment; diagnosis under DSM-V accepted as substantial medical evidence supporting industrial injury finding.
His opinion was relied upon by WCAB to affirm industrial injury finding.
From the decision · page 3Turning to the merits, the WCJ found industrial injury based on the reporting and testimony of primary treating physician Marc Nehorayan, M.D., who opined that applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment. We note that since applicant's injury resulted from being a victim of or direct exposure to a violent act a finding that defendant does not challenge it need only be proved the actual events of employment were a substantial cause of the injury. (Cal. Labor Code, § 3208.3, subd. (b)(2).)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Labor Code 3208.3
Labor Code section 3208.3(a) and (b)(2) regarding compensability of psychiatric injury and causation standards for victims of violent acts.
The WCAB applied these provisions to affirm industrial injury to psyche based on substantial medical evidence and causation analysis.
From the decision · page 3Turning to the merits, the WCJ found industrial injury based on the reporting and testimony of primary treating physician Marc Nehorayan, M.D., who opined that applicant's psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment. We note that since applicant's injury resulted from being a victim of or direct exposure to a violent act a finding that defendant does not challenge it need only be proved the actual events of employment were a substantial cause of the injury. (Cal. Labor Code, § 3208.3, subd. (b)(2).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant was a victim of a violent act or direct exposure to a significant violent act under LC 3208.3(b)(2).
From the decision · page 5FINDINGS OF FACT 1. the applicant, while employed on 5/13/22 as a librarian, occupational Group Number 214, at Burbank California, by City of Burbank, self-insured sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the psyche. 2. Applicant is a "victim of a violent act or from direct exposure to a significant violent act," under LC § 3208.3(b)(2).
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.