CompFox AI Summary
This case involves a worker's compensation claim for a psychological injury. The defendant argued the applicant did not meet the six-month employment requirement under Labor Code 3208.3 or the "sudden and extraordinary" exception. The Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the psyche, determining the applicant's intermittent employment, including time after the injury, constituted sufficient "actual service." A dissenting opinion argued the applicant's service was less than six months and the backhoe injury was not "sudden and extraordinary."
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case involves a worker's compensation claim for a psychological injury. The defendant argued the applicant did not meet the six-month employment requirement under Labor Code 3208.3 or the "sudden and extraordinary" exception. The Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the psyche, determining the applicant's intermittent employment, including time after the injury, constituted sufficient "actual service." A dissenting opinion argued the applicant's service was less than six months and the backhoe injury was not "sudden and extraordinary."
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.