Appellate Court Shuts Off PG&E Employee’s Benefits By Robert Warne - January 14, 2004 The First District Appellate Court of California recently reigned in a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s (WCAB) generous interpretation of Labor Code section 3208.3 relating to a compensable psyche claim.
Clifford Bryan, an employee of 30 years with PG&E started to mentally fall apart in 2001. A company-referred doctor examined Bryan and concluded that his condition was a result of “personal non-industrial stressors”. The doctor said Bryan’s elevated stress level could be explained by the fact that Bryan had a hernia, that he was a recovering alcoholic, that his father had died recently and that his daughter had medical problems.
Bryan then found his own doctor who said that he was suffering from a “major depressive disorder” which was entirely industrial and that he was “temporarily totally disabled.”
A workers’ compensation judge denied benefits to Bryan because he wasn’t convinced the work stress was the predominant cause of Bryan’s psychiatric injury.
But the WCAB reconsidered the claim and granted Bryan benefits based on four factors.
The WCAB ruled that PG&E’s downsizing, Bryan’s daily interaction with angry customers during the state’s energy crisis, the deflated value of PG&E’s stock which Bryan owned and the uncertainty surrounding PG&E’s future and his retirement funds were the predominant cause of Bryan’s psychological condition.
The appellate court examined the factors and determined that all but one of the circumstances cited by the WCAB constituted an event of employment based on the Legislative intent of 3208.3 to limit the frequency of psyche claims.
The court ruled that Bryan’s daily exposure to irate customers was directly related to his work assignment and could be compensable under 3208.3.
The court was aware of the precedent it would be setting if it allowed stock fluctuations and a company’s future to be compensable factors under 3208.3.
The case was remanded back to the WCAB Jan. 9 for further proceedings based on the appellate court’s clarifications.
|