Lowe’s; Kemper/Reliance By Specialty Risk Services Jonathon Rooney WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJONATHON ROONEY, Applicant,vs.LOWE’S; KEMPER/RELIANCE By SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, Defendant(s).CaseNo. ANA 0363299ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in said report which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration. In both County of San Bernardino v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Atalla) (2003) 68 Cal.Comp.Cases 944 (writ den.) and Los Angeles Unified School District v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Carpenter) (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 1048 (wit den), it was held that six-month employment requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3(d) may be met by a combination of work before and after the employee’s psychiatric injury, ie., section 3208.3(d) only requires six months of employment, not six months of employment before the date of injury. In reaching this conclusion, both Atalla and Carpenter relied on 4 long line of cases holding that the purpose of the six-month employment requirement of section 3208.3(d) is to limit questionable or fraudulent claims resulting from alleged stress during the first six months of employment. These cases recognize that, in many employer-employee contracts, the new employee is customarily on probation during the first six months when problems between the employee and employer or supervisor often occur, resulting in disciplinary action, resignation, or , termination and leading to claims of psychiatric injury due to stress. (Hansen v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1184 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 602]; accord, e.g.: Matea v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1446 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1522]; Loc
