Framee Jones while employed during the period November 7, 2023, through January 26, 2024, as an Occupational Therapy Assistant by Vista Knoll Specialized Care, claimed to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her psyche.

This matter proceeded to trial over four days, concluding on March 6, 2025. Multiple employer witnesses testified about the incidents in which applicant alleged had caused her an industrial psychiatric injury. Multiple employer witnesses all agreed that Jones was good at her job as an Occupational Therapy Assistant (OTA). However, the witnesses also stated to the Court that her moods were unpredictable, she created an environment in which everyone would “walk on eggshells”, she was more excitable than average, and she could be snappy. On the last day of trial, the matter was submitted.

The WCJ found applicant had not met her burden of proof establishing an industrial injury and  issued an Order that applicant take nothing.

The WCAB denied reconsideration of the take nothing in the panel decision of Jones v Vista Knoll Specialized Care – ADJ19555636 (June 2025).

Labor code § 3208.3 states that in order to establish industrial causation of a psychiatric injury, an injured worker must show by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment predominantly caused the psychological injury. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1).

The WCJ relied on the analysis of Verga v. WCAB, (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 174, 73 CCC 63 in deciding this case. In Verga, the court of appeal agreed with the WCAB in concluding that the disdainful reactions of a supervisor and co-workers to an employee’s mistreatment of them do not constitute “actual events of employment” for which the employee can obtain worker’s compensation benefits for the psychological stress that the employee experiences because of those disdainful reactions to her inappropriate conduct.

Jones attempts to distinguish that the worker in Verga received across the board negative reviews regarding her attitude and performance, while in the current matter every employer witness had nice things to say about her.

The WCJ noted that however “what Petitioner fails to acknowledge is that the standard in Verga establishes that in order to prevail, the worker needs to show ‘objective evidence of harassment, persecution, or other basis for the alleged psychiatric injury.’ “

The WCAB panel denied reconsideration, stating that it has “given the WCJ’s credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ’s credibility determinations. (Id.) Thus, we do not disturb the WCJ’s conclusions.”