What the panel ordered
The Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration, rescinded the Findings of Fact and Order of September 16, 2025, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order of September 16, 2025, which denied her claim for industrial injury to psyche; the WCJ found the defendant's witnesses more credible and medical evidence insufficient; the Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the F&O, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.
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 failed to properly analyze whether workplace incidents were actual events of employment and the medical opinion was insufficient as it did not break down causation percentages and ignored more credible employer witness testimony; further medical development was required.
From the decision · page 8In the instant case, the WCJ did not address whether the workplace incidents were actual events of employment. (Lab. Code § 3208.3(b)(1); Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., supra, 66 Cal. Comp. Cases at pp. 245-247.) Therefore, the WCJ must perform a proper analysis of the psych claim.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ found the defendant's witnesses more credible than the applicant, which undermined the applicant's claim of industrial injury to psyche.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This credibility finding was a basis for denying the claim initially and was challenged on reconsideration.
From the decision · page 5On October 16, 2025, the WCJ found that applicant had failed to sustain her burden of proving she sustained an industrial injury to her psyche. (F&O, p. 2.) The WCJ further found that the defendant's witnesses were more credible than applicant; that the medical reports of Dr. Hoffman do not constitute substantial medical evidence; and that all other issue were moot by the finding that there was no industrial injury AOE/COE to applicant during the period of July 1, 2009, to May 21, 2024. (F&O, p. 2.) The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing further in the case. (F&O, p. 2.)
Dr. Hoffman did not provide a breakdown of percentage contribution of each causal factor to the psychiatric injury, which was required for proper causation analysis.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The lack of detailed causation percentages made the medical opinion insufficient to support the WCJ's denial.
From the decision · page 8Further, the medical opinion of Dr. Hoffman is insufficient as a basis for a finding of whether applicant sustained an industrial psych injury. First, Dr. Hoffman did not consider the testimony of the employer witnesses who the WCJ found more credible than applicant. Additionally, Dr. Hoffman lumped all of the causal factors together in concluding that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE. Dr. Hoffman stated that "within reasonable medical probability, the actual events of employment were predominant (> 50%) to all causes combined to have produced a psychiatric injury." (Ex. A., dated 10/3/24, p. 20.) He further stated that "within reasonable medical probability, 100% of the psychiatric injury can be attributed to the alleged stress and alleged harassment by the applicant's supervisor/ owner during the period of continuous trauma." (Ex. A., p. 20.) However, Dr. Hoffman was required to provide breakdown of the percentage contribution of each factor so the threshold determinations could be made.
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.
Dr. Hoffman opined that the actual events of employment were the predominant cause (>50%) of the psychiatric injury and attributed 100% of the psychiatric injury to stress and harassment by the supervisor/owner during continuous trauma. He deferred internal medicine injury causation to other specialists.
Dr. Hoffman provided a medical opinion on causation of psychiatric injury but did not break down causation percentages by factor and did not consider employer witness testimony found more credible by the WCJ.
From the decision · page 2The panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) in psychiatry, Dr. Micah Hoffman, M.D., produced two reports after evaluating applicant. In his report of October 3, 2024, Dr. Hoffman stated that "within reasonable medical probability, the actual events of employment were predominant (> 50%) to all causes combined to have produced a psychiatric injury." (Ex. A, PQME Report of Micah Hoffman, M.D., dated 10/3/24, p. 20.) He further stated that "within reasonable medical probability, 100% of the psychiatric injury can be attributed to the alleged stress and alleged harassment by the applicant's supervisor/ owner during the period of continuous trauma." (Ex. A., p. 20.) Dr. Hoffman concluded that applicant's injuries were AOE/COE. (Ex. A, pp. 20, 22.) Dr.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code 3208.3(b)(1); Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 241, 245 (Appeals Bd. en banc)
To establish compensability of psychiatric injury, applicant must show actual events of employment predominantly caused the injury, requiring factual and medical determinations.
The WCJ failed to analyze whether workplace incidents were actual events of employment, a factual/legal issue, and the medical opinion was insufficient for causation determination.
From the decision · page 8In the instant case, the WCJ did not address whether the workplace incidents were actual events of employment. (Lab. Code § 3208.3(b)(1); Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., supra, 66 Cal. Comp. Cases at pp. 245-247.) Therefore, the WCJ must perform a proper analysis of the psych claim.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The WCJ found defendant's witnesses more credible than applicant, which influenced the denial of the initial claim.
From the decision · page 5On October 16, 2025, the WCJ found that applicant had failed to sustain her burden of proving she sustained an industrial injury to her psyche. (F&O, p. 2.) The WCJ further found that the defendant's witnesses were more credible than applicant; that the medical reports of Dr. Hoffman do not constitute substantial medical evidence; and that all other issue were moot by the finding that there was no industrial injury AOE/COE to applicant during the period of July 1, 2009, to May 21, 2024. (F&O, p. 2.) The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing further in the case. (F&O, p. 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.