Court Rules Labor Code Section 3208.3 Burden of Proof Falls on Applicant, by Richard M. Jacobsmeyer, Esq. The Second District Court of Appeals has reversed a W.C.A.B. award of psychiatric injury for an employee with less than 6 months employment and in doing so has provided valuable additional guidance on the criterion for meeting the statutory exception to the 6 month limitation on such injuries and the burden of proof under Labor Code § 3208.3(d). In State Fund v W.C.A.B. (Garcia) ... > Read more.

In a White Paper released March 2012, the California Labor Federation called for "undoing the damage" of SB 899, claiming injured workers have been "forced to foot the bill" for employers' reduced workers' comp costs and insurers' "historic profits". "Key Facts" include (1) workers' comp claim frequency has been pushed even lower because SB 899 has made it harder for injured workers to obtain benefits; (2) deregulation of the insurance market beginning in 1993 led to the crisis in workers' compensation; (3) SB 899 slashed permanent disability benefits by 40%, and total permanent disability has been slashed by two-thirds; (4) time limits on temporary disability have forced workers to rely on group health insurance and state disability insurance; (5) medical treatment is delayed and denied by insurance companies applying utilization review and strict interpretation of medical treatment guidelines; (6) a cottage industry of medical providers, pharmacies, and others have exploited the system, driving up costs; and (7) incentives for employers to return injured workers to work are inadequate and ineffective. > Read the White Paper.

WCAB, granting reconsideration, issued notice of its intention to (1) rescind WCJ's Order wherein WCJ awarded costs to applicant's attorney of $15,610 and imposed sanctions of $2,500 against defendant, (2) find that defendant and its attorney engaged in bad faith actions and frivolous tactics, and (3) order payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees and costs of up to $15,610, and impose sanctions of up to $2,500 under LC 5813 and Rule 10561, jointly and severally, against defendant and defense counsel, when WCAB found that defendant violated CCP 2019.030, 2023.010, 2025.410, and 2025.610, by seeking to depose applicant on multiple occasions without reasonable justification, without applicant's consent and without statutory basis, by unsuccessfully opposing applicant's motion to quash her deposition, by unsuccessfully filing motion to compel and by unsuccessfully asserting that applicant engaged in misuse of discovery process, thereby making imposition of sanction mandatory under CCP 2025.410(d), and when contentions and misrepresentations made by defendant in multiple verified pleadings with respect to applicant's deposition transcript were entirely without merit. See Weilmann panel decision.

Reminder: Be sure to check the subsequent history of a case before citing to it.