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. 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. ADJ3926578 (GOL 0088323)
Regular
Apr 15, 2010

Joseph Villa vs. FOOD 4 LESS, ESIS/ACE USA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding applicant sustained a 100% permanent disability due to back and psyche injuries. Defendant argued against the psychiatric injury claim based on the applicant's short employment duration and lack of a sudden/extraordinary event. The Board found the medical evidence regarding the psychiatric injury's causation was insufficient and potentially contradictory. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further development of the record on causation and to address the six-month employment rule and the "sudden and extraordinary" event requirement if applicable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPsychiatric InjurySudden and Extraordinary Employment ConditionPredominant CauseSubstantial Medical EvidenceRes JudicataLachesApportionmentSomatizationDerivative Injury
References
21
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. 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. ADJ7096070
Regular
Jan 18, 2011

HUGO PEREZ vs. CONSTRUCTION ZONE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured in a scaffolding fall who also claims psychiatric injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the applicant, employed for less than six months, argued his psychiatric injury stemmed from a "sudden and extraordinary" event. The Board found the protective tubing giving way during his fall constituted an extraordinary event, thus excepting it from the six-month employment rule for psychiatric claims. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix-month employment rulesudden and extraordinary eventscaffoldingfall from heightprotective tubingcompensabilityreconsiderationrescinded
References
5
Case No. ADJ1332729 (RDG 0121425)
Regular
Feb 18, 2011

LINEA HIMES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES-IHSS, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the compensability of the applicant's psychiatric injury. The defendant argued the applicant's psychiatric injury was not compensable due to less than six months of employment, as required by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). While the WCJ found the auto accident was a "sudden and extraordinary event" exempting the six-month rule, the Board remanded the case. The Board requires the WCJ to first determine the applicant's exact length of employment before addressing the "sudden and extraordinary" exception.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLegally UninsuredAdjusting AgencyFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryPsyche InjuryPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentTraumatic Automobile Accident
References
4
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
Case No. ADJ7412203
Regular
Jul 15, 2011

RIGOBERTO GARCIA vs. COLE RANCH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's industrial injury was caused by a "sudden and extraordinary" event, thereby exempting it from the six-month employment rule for psychiatric injuries under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The Board corrected a clerical error in the citation of the relevant statute. While the defendant argued the event was an inherent risk of the job, the applicant's uncontradicted testimony provided the only evidence suggesting it was not routine. A dissenting opinion argued that a simple fall from a ladder, without more, should not qualify as extraordinary, especially given the short employment duration and lack of evidence for truly unusual circumstances.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRigoberto GarciaCole RanchState Compensation Insurance FundADJ7412203Opinion and Order Denying Petition for ReconsiderationCorrecting Clerical ErrorFindings and Ordersavocado pickerhigh tree worker
References
10
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Joyner v. Event Design Associates, Inc.

Claimant was retained by Event Design Associates, Inc. (EDA) to transport furniture and event props for a party. While en route to a hotel during this assignment, claimant was involved in an automobile accident and sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits, asserting an employer-employee relationship with EDA. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that an employment relationship existed. EDA appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship, based on factors such as EDA's control over the work, method of payment, and right to terminate.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceControl TestAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentNew YorkWorkers' Compensation BoardTemporary Employment
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,127 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