CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ2582936
Regular
May 20, 2011

MAYRA ENRIQUEZ vs. NOUVEUR DESIGN, INC., EMPLOYER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision to deny compensation for the applicant's claimed psychiatric injury. Applicant, employed for less than six months, argued her injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The Board found that catching her hand in a machine was a foreseeable, ordinary risk of her job, not an extraordinary event. Therefore, Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims unless caused by an extraordinary condition, barred recovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3208.3(d)extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementsudden and extraordinaryregular and routinemachine operatorindustrial injurypetition for reconsideration
References
5
Case No. ADJ8222509
Regular
May 12, 2015

SARAI CRUZ CANSECO vs. NEW DESSERTS, INC., WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether an employee's psychiatric injury claim is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which typically requires six months of employment, unless the injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The applicant, employed for less than six months, injured her wrist and ankle when a bakery cart collapsed. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the cart's collapse constituted a sudden and extraordinary event that did not bar the psychiatric claim. The dissenting commissioner argued the collapse was an unforeseen accident but not extraordinary enough to bypass the six-month rule, differentiating it from truly sudden and extraordinary events.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment rulebakery cart collapseindustrial injurycompensable consequenceroutine employment eventoccupational hazardno-fault system
References
3
Case No. ADJ2012304 (STK 0213737)
Regular
May 27, 2014

HILARIO GONZALES vs. DIRK LIMAS CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Judge's decision that denied his psychiatric injury claim due to insufficient employment duration and labeled his accident as not "sudden and extraordinary." The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the psychiatric injury claim compensable because the applicant's testimony, uncontradicted by the defense, established the accident as a sudden and extraordinary employment condition. The Board also ruled the psychiatric expert's reports admissible and remanded the case for further proceedings on permanent disability and future medical care, particularly concerning cognitive and psychiatric conditions. The issue of apportionment of permanent disability was deferred pending further development of the record.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurypermanent disabilityfuture medical carereconsiderationvocational expertApportionmentPQMEAME
References
12
Case No. ADJ7050835
Regular
Sep 08, 2015

MARK DREHER vs. ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL, TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits following an injury sustained while employed as a live-in maintenance supervisor. The central dispute concerns whether the applicant's psychiatric injury claim is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which typically requires six months of employment unless the injury resulted from a sudden and extraordinary condition. The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision to amend the finding of injury to include the psyche, provided it was caused by a sudden and extraordinary condition, and deferred findings on permanent disability and attorney's fees pending further record development. The Board found the defendant's petition premature regarding these deferred issues and lacking grounds for removal.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and Awardpsychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionpermanent disabilityvocational expertattorney's feesagreed medical examiner
References
4
Case No. ADJ850378 (OAK 0327145)
Regular
Jul 20, 2009

JUAN C. CAMPOS vs. EXPERT TREE SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant injured while working as a tree climber, who sustained multiple physical injuries and sought compensation for a psychological injury. The defendant contested the psychological injury claim, arguing it didn't meet the "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" exception to the six-month employment rule for such claims. The Board granted reconsideration, reversing the finding of a compensable psychological injury because the event, while sudden, was not extraordinary for the nature of the employment. The case is remanded for a new rating of orthopedic permanent disability.

Labor Code section 3208.3sudden and extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurypermanent disabilityAMA Guidessequelaecompensable consequenceindustrial injuryreconsiderationfindings award and order
References
5
Case No. ADJ6754663
Regular
Jun 21, 2010

RUBEN CASTILLO vs. J. JOHNSON & COMPANY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured within six months of employment, raising a claim for psychiatric injury. Labor Code Section 3208.3(d) generally bars such claims unless the injury results from a "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition. The Appeals Board, in a majority decision, found the applicant's injury from a backhoe bucket was not extraordinary, thus reversing the WCJ's finding and barring the psychiatric claim. A dissenting opinion argued that being struck by a backhoe bucket is not a regular or routine incident and should qualify as a sudden and extraordinary event.

Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurysix-month employment rulereconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJReport and Recommendationbackhoe bucketworkplace violence
References
4
Case No. ADJ1564893 (OAK 0326092)
Regular
Mar 29, 2010

Harold Ott vs. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

This case involves Harold Ott's claim for a psychiatric injury following a physical injury at Kohl's Department Store, where he had been employed for less than six months. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a prior decision denying the psychiatric claim. This denial was based on Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which requires at least six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims unless caused by a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The WCAB found that while the box falling on the applicant was sudden, it was not extraordinary, citing testimony that boxes falling was not uncommon in the store's operations. Therefore, the psychiatric injury claim was barred.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment ruleadmitted industrial injuryconsequential psychiatric injurycompensabilityworkers' compensation judgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardreconsideration
References
3
Case No. ADJ484574 (ANA 0392117)
Regular
Apr 12, 2010

HECTOR ROMAN vs. D L BONE & SONS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The defendant seeks reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that awarded psychiatric injury benefits to an applicant injured within six months of employment. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for further proceedings. The core issue is whether the applicant's fall due to a rotted beam, while employed less than six months, constitutes a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" for psychiatric injury. The Board found the fall, though sudden, was not sufficiently extraordinary given the applicant's role as a painter regularly working at heights, thus likely precluding psychiatric benefits under Labor Code § 3208.3(d).

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurybilateral wristsneckbackpsychiatric injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentfurther medical treatmentLabor Code section 3208.3(d)
References
6
Case No. ADJ10248888
Regular
Jan 23, 2019

JUAN PAQUINI vs. SPRING HILL JERSEY CHEESE, INC., dba PETALUMA CREAMERY

Applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that his vehicle accident was not a "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition, which would have allowed compensation for psychiatric injury despite less than six months of employment. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant's testimony regarding the alleged steering wheel lock was contradictory and lacked credibility. Furthermore, the Board determined the applicant failed to prove the incident was uncommon or unexpected beyond personal experience. Consequently, the original order was amended to explicitly state the injury did *not* fall under the sudden and extraordinary exception.

AOE/COELabor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinarypsychiatric injuryless than six months employmentmotor vehicle accidentsteering wheel lockedcredibility determinationpreponderance of the evidencefactual inquiry
References
12
Case No. ADJ6561833
Regular
Aug 19, 2011

Stephen Resetar vs. CONSTRUCTORA AMORA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a worker, Stephen Resetar, who sustained a physical injury to his spine after falling from a ladder. Resetar also claimed a psychological injury, but had been employed for less than six months. Labor Code § 3208.3(d) generally bars compensation for psychiatric injuries in such cases unless caused by a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The Appeals Board found that Resetar's fall, caused by dizziness and falling from a ladder, did not qualify as a sudden and extraordinary event. Therefore, Resetar's claim for psychiatric injury is barred, and reconsideration is granted to reflect this decision.

Labor Code § 3208.3(d)psyche injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment rulereconsiderrescindcompensable injuryfall from ladderdizzinessdehydration
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 12,693 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational