ADJ19198086 · August 25, 2025

The Appeals Board found the applicant's credible testimony that employment began on April 6, 2022, with onboarding activities constituting actual service under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Defendant failed to prove the employment period was insufficient and did not rebut the stipulation that applicant was employed on November 1, 2022.

From the decision · page 3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. Section 3208.3(d) provides in pertinent part that "no compensation shall be paid pursuant to this division for a psychiatric injury related to a claim against an employer unless the employee has been employed by that employer for at least six months. The six months of employment need not be continuous." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(d).)

Applicant began employment activities on April 6, 2022, including laptop receipt, account setup, and onboarding checklist completion.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established the start of actual service for purposes of Labor Code section 3208.3(d).

From the decision · page 3At trial, applicant testified credibly about the start of his employment as follows:

Defendant failed to provide evidence or testimony to rebut applicant's credible testimony and stipulation of employment on November 1, 2022.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without rebuttal, the Board upheld the employment period as sufficient under section 3208.3(d).

From the decision · page 4completed, he was ready for online orientation. At that point Zoom was used to go through the online orientation with any new Oracle employee. Applicant's Exhibit 2, a 4/13/22 email, represented the new-hire information. That was the start of the onboarding process. (MOH/SOE, at p. 3:8-14.) We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (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 determinations. (Id.) In addition to finding the applicant credible, the WCJ also observed that the applicant's testimony was unrebutted.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)

Labor Code section 3208.3(d) requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims, which need not be continuous.

The Board applied the statute to determine the employment period requirement for compensability of psychiatric injury.

From the decision · page 3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. Section 3208.3(d) provides in pertinent part that "no compensation shall be paid pursuant to this division for a psychiatric injury related to a claim against an employer unless the employee has been employed by that employer for at least six months. The six months of employment need not be continuous." (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(d).)

Garcia v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1435

Employment means actual service for the employer, not necessarily paid work, under section 3208.3(d).

The Board relied on Garcia to interpret 'employment' as actual service, including onboarding activities before paid work began.

From the decision · page 3The Court of Appeal has previously opined that the word "employment" in section 3208.3(d) means "the performance of actual service for the employer." (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1442 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 1575].) Section 3208.3(d) specifically provides that the six months of employment "need not be continuous," and cases before and subsequent to Garcia have held that the six months of employment can be accrued by actual service both before and after the injury. (See Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Carpenter) (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 1048 (writ den.); County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Atalla) (2003) 68 Cal.Comp.Cases 944 (writ den.).)

CIGA v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Avila) (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 1323

The burden of proof to show insufficient employment period under section 3208.3(d) rests with the defendant employer.

The Board applied this precedent to assign burden of proof to defendant for the six-month employment requirement.

Applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony about employment start date and onboarding activities.

From the decision · page 4completed, he was ready for online orientation. At that point Zoom was used to go through the online orientation with any new Oracle employee. Applicant's Exhibit 2, a 4/13/22 email, represented the new-hire information. That was the start of the onboarding process. (MOH/SOE, at p. 3:8-14.) We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (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 determinations. (Id.) In addition to finding the applicant credible, the WCJ also observed that the applicant's testimony was unrebutted.

Defendant failed to provide witness testimony or documentary evidence to rebut applicant's employment period starting April 6, 2022.

From the decision · page 9At trial, defendant had every opportunity to clarify the employment stipulation via employer witness testimony or presentation of documentary evidence or information. Defendant offered no witness testimony. Additionally, as previously discussed in Garcia, defendant employer has access to documentary evidence related to the employment yet still provided no documentary evidence about applicant's ongoing but changed employment status on November 1, 2022. Hence, defendant has not met its burden of proof to be relieved of the employment stipulation. Accordingly, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration.