ADJ19555636 · June 24, 2025

The WCJ found no objective evidence of harassment or bullying constituting actual events of employment causing the psychiatric injury. The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight and not disturbed. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's findings and denied the petition.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order and Award (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 9, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her psyche while employed during the period November 7, 2023, through January 26, 2024, as an Occupational Therapy Assistant. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing.

Applicant did not present objective evidence of harassment or bullying by coworkers.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Without objective evidence of harassment or bullying, the WCJ found no actual events of employment causing the psychiatric injury.

From the decision · page 6received across the board negative reviews regarding her attitude and performance, while in the current matter every employer witness had nice things to say about her. However, what Petitioner fails to acknowledge is that the standard in Verga establishes that in order to prevail, the worker needs to show "objective evidence of harassment, persecution, or other basis for the alleged psychiatric injury." (Petition for Reconsideration, page 11, lines 18-19) Based on the evidentiary record, she did not meet this standard.

WCJ's credibility determinations based on demeanor observations of witnesses were given great weight and not disturbed.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's credibility findings, which supported denial of the petition.

From the decision · page 3As the WCJ noted, multiple employer witnesses testified extensively at trial. 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.) Thus, we do not disturb the WCJ's conclusions.

Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1)

To establish industrial causation of a psychiatric injury, the worker must show by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment predominantly caused the psychological injury.

The WCJ applied this standard to determine that the applicant did not meet the burden of proof for industrial causation of psychiatric injury.

From the decision · page 2We note that section 3208.3 states that in order to establish industrial causation of a psychiatric injury, an injured worker must show by a preponderance of the evidence that actual

WCJ's credibility determinations based on demeanor observations and witness testimony

From the decision · page 3As the WCJ noted, multiple employer witnesses testified extensively at trial. 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.) Thus, we do not disturb the WCJ's conclusions.

Lack of objective evidence of harassment or bullying

From the decision · page 6Petitioner relies on the testimony of the multiple employer witnesses who all agreed that she was good at her job as an Occupational Therapy Assistant (OTA). However, the witnesses also stated to the Court that her moods were unpredictable, she created an environment in which everyone would "walk on eggshells", she was more excitable than average, and she could be snappy. This WCJ agrees that Petitioner's coworkers find her to be a very effective OTA. However, this still does not establish that Petitioner's coworker's actions rise to the level of harassment or bullying on an objective level such that his actions constituted "actual events of employment" causing an industrial injury to Petitioner's psyche. There was no other objective evidence to establish such allegations. Again, like in Verga, Petitioner's misperceptions did not constitute actual events of employment which would warrant an Award of worker's compensation benefits.