Court Opinion

ID: 9728413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:07:21.314756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:48.457702
License: Public Domain

DALSIMER, J.
I respectfully dissent.
The whole burden of the petition for review filed by the permissibly self-insured employer was that the public policy of the State of California should not permit and does not permit compensation to an employee for injury to the nervous system and psyche arising at or occurring after an economic job termination or layoff. It is conceded by both the petitioner and the majority that the applicant employee has sustained and does suffer from injury *80to his nervous system and psyche. The workers’ compensation judge’s finding sustained by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board was that employee Byrne suffered a psychoneurotic injury due to cumulative stress endured from January 1978 through his last day of employment, November 29, 1979. The majority specifically holds, “We accept the judge’s finding— and- the Board’s support for that finding—to the extent that Byrne’s injury was cumulative rather than solely the result of the circumstances under which he left his employment on November 29, 1979. Petitioner’s argument that the award was made for an injury occasioned by employment termination is not supported by the record.” (Majority opn., ante, at p. 75.)
This holding by the majority disposes of the only issue raised by petitioner in this case. The petition, based upon such a finding by the majority, should be denied. Rather than following this course, however, the majority, sua sponte, questions whether there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the employee’s injury was industrially related.
The decision of the majority on the issue raised solely by the majority is simply not supported by the record. As the majority correctly states, “judicial review of decisions of the WCAB on factual matters is limited to determining whether the decision, based on the entire record, is supported by substantial evidence [citations].” (Majority opn., ante, at p. 74.) Again, as the majority concedes, the finding as to whether the employee’s injury arose out of and occurred during the course of his employment is a question of fact to be determined by the workers’ compensation judge. Citing Petrocelli v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 635 [119 Cal.Rptr. 620], the majority further notes that the respondent board’s decision to uphold the finding of the workers’ compensation judge should not be disturbed where supported by substantial evidence or fairly drawn inferences and that all reasonable doubts are to be resolved in favor of the employee. Having thus correctly set forth the standards for review, the majority proceeds to disregard them.
In this case, the workers’ compensation judge found that the medical evidence of two treating physicians taken together with respondent’s testimony established that the respondent’s psychoneurotic injury was due to the cumulative work-related stress endured from January 1978 to the layoff on November 29, 1979. It is settled law that disability for mental or nervous breakdown proximately resulting from an industrial injury is compensable. The test is whether the injury or stress of employment is a substantial contributing factor to the disability. Psychiatric opinion must link the industrial incidents to the development of the employee’s disabling psychiatric condition. Such an injury can be the result of the cumulative effect of daily *81stress and strain. (Baker v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 852, 861 [96 Cal.Rptr. 279].)
The majority opines that the medical evidence relied upon by the workers’ compensation judge and by the board did not meet minimal requirements of substantial evidence. Dr. Amstadter, a psychiatrist, reported as follows: “ ‘Mr. Byrne shows evidence of severe depression. In his appearance, his expression is one of dejection. Thought content is negative and Mr. Byrne tends to ruminate on employment conditions which he feels have caused present problems. He experiences loss of efficiency and self confidence, diminished pleasure in previously rewarding activities, preoccupation with matters of personal inadequacy and feelings of worthlessness. Mr. Byrne displays a severe anxiety reaction, [f] The numerous bodily complaints he experiences such as dizziness, shortness of breath, numbness and “pins and needles,” insomia [szc], headaches, muscular tightness, sensations of the left extremities appear to be somatization of the depression and anxiety he has experienced as a result of job related conflicts, [f] Mr. Byrne reported that he has experienced an exacerbation of these symptoms in December 1979 when he was told by his supervisor that he would have to work longer hours or be fired. Work related pressures definitely appear to be a major factor in causing his present condition.’ ” (Italics supplied.)
The majority’s objection to the doctor’s conclusion that the employee’s condition was work related as being not sufficient because no specific connections were described seems to be more of an objection to the policy of awarding compensation for injury to the psyche than it does an objection to the evidence. The testimony adduced at the hearing established that the applicant was subjected to stressful conditions during the period in question when he worked as the head of the quality control department and as a safety supervisor overseeing all three shifts, working as much as thirteen hours a day. The details of these conditions which caused him to be nervous, taken with the inferences drawn in the report of the doctor, indubitably provided the minimum evidence which controls the appellate court when reviewing the factual findings of the workers’ compensation judge and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.
The majority’s reliance on Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 778 [190 Cal.Rptr. 560] is misplaced. In the Twentieth Century-Fox case, the workers’ compensation judge failed to discuss his conclusion as to the relationship between the employment and the psychiatric condition. Further, the board in denying *82reconsideration merely incorporated the report of the workers’ compensation judge. Neither the workers’ compensation judge nor the board specifically determined whether the employment in fact played an active or positive role in the development of the psychological condition or whether the employment was a mere passive element that the applicant happened to focus on. Based upon that ground, the court held that it must remand the case for proper findings. In the case at bench, the workers’ compensation judge in fact did discuss the reasons for his decision and did make specific findings as follows: “ ‘The evidence establishes that in 1977 the applicant first developed emotional problems. The emotional problems that occurred in 1977 were not caused or aggravated by his job. [f] Applicant came under stress at work beginning January 2, 1978 and culminating with the elimination of his job and the events of November 29, 1979. The cumulative stress from January 2, 1978 to November 29, 1979, resulted in an aggravation and worsening of applicant’s underlying and disabling non-industrial condition on November 29, 1979 when applicant became ill at work. Therefore it is found that applicant did sustain an injury arising out of and occuring [j/c] in the course of his employment from January 2, 1978 through November 29, 1979.’”
As is noted by the court in Twentieth Century-Fox, “A finding of industrial injury must be supported by substantial evidence, which includes both competent lay and medical evidence. [Citation.]” (Id., at p. 784.) The lay applicant’s testimony was corroborated by the reports of the experts, Dr. Amstadter, Dr. Barr, another psychiatrist, and Dr. Hachman, a psychiatrist employed by the employer, which all described psychiatric injuries to the applicant. Both Dr. Barr and Dr. Amstadter found that those injuries were caused by work-related pressures.
Significantly, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that applicant’s injuries were not caused by his work-related depressions. “The [workers’ compensation judge] ‘must accept as true the intended meaning of [evidence] both uncontradicted and unimpeached.’ [Citation.]” (LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 639 [83 Cal.Rptr. 208, 463 P.2d 432].) I submit that the workers’ compensation judge and the board complied with this injunction only to be met with the majority’s disregard of it.
The petition should be denied.