Valentine: A 5.95-Month Calculation Could Not Resolve the Worker’s Entire Injury Claim

If work has affected your mental health or caused physical symptoms, a dispute over how long you worked can feel far removed from what you are experiencing. California has a six-month employment rule for psychiatric injury claims. Applying it still requires a sound employment record and a medical understanding of the conditions being claimed.

In Valentine v. Arco de Oro, Inc., No. ADJ16904999 (WCAB Nov. 6, 2023), the judge calculated 5.95 months of employment and denied the worker’s whole claim. The Board rescinded that decision. The wrong burden had been placed on the worker, the employment evidence was insufficient, and the record did not establish the nature or medical relationship of her claimed conditions.

The parties submitted the length of employment for trial

Theresa Valentine worked as a McDonald’s crew member and claimed cumulative injury to her abdomen, stress and psyche during a period beginning in April 2022 and ending in October 2022.

The parties submitted one issue for trial: Whether she had worked for the employer for six months under Labor Code section 3208.3. The judge received a pay-statement history and a time-punch audit. No witnesses testified, and the record lacked medical evidence explaining the alleged injuries and their causes. An off-work slip did not identify a medical condition.

As the Valentine opinion recounts, the judge used April 21 through October 17 as the dates worked, converted 181 days into 5.95 months, and placed the burden of proving six months on Valentine. The resulting decision also found that she had sustained no industrial injury to the claimed areas.

The Board separated the questions. A psychiatric-injury defense based on employment length and a determination of whether an injury arose from work require different findings. Industrial causation had not been submitted as the issue for that trial.

The employer bore the burden of establishing the six-month defense

Labor Code section 3208.3(d) generally requires at least six months of employment with the employer for a psychiatric injury claim; the months need not be continuous. The statute also contains an exception for injury caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition.

In Valentine, the panel explained that the employer asserting the six-month defense bears the burden of establishing it. It relied on CIGA v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Avila), 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 1323, 1325 (2004), and the rule that the party asserting an affirmative issue must prove it.

The panel preserved the worker’s separate obligation to establish a compensable psychiatric injury through substantial medical evidence under the applicable statutory requirements. The worker’s medical proof and the employer’s employment-length defense each required a supported determination.

On the particular employment record, the panel found that the evidence was not substantial. It noted the absence of witness testimony and directed further proceedings on the length of service. The judge’s numerical calculation therefore could not carry the dismissal on its own.

The claimed abdominal condition required a medical explanation

The Board also examined how the judge had treated “stress,” abdominal injury and psychiatric injury as if the same rule necessarily disposed of all three.

It explained that stress is not itself a medical diagnosis. Stress can contribute to a physical condition, a psychiatric condition or both. Identifying what happened medically was essential before choosing the governing rule.

The panel discussed the distinction between a physical injury caused by stress and a physical condition directly and solely resulting from a psychiatric injury affected by the good-faith-personnel-action defense. It also addressed a psychiatric condition claimed as a consequence of physical injury. Those causal pathways can require different legal analysis.

Here, the record did not explain the factual basis of Valentine’s conditions or the medical relationship between her abdomen and psychiatric claim. The Valentine opinion directed the judge to revisit those questions after receiving competent medical evidence.

The panel discussed substantial compliance while ordering a new record

For guidance on remand, the Valentine panel discussed CIGA v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Mills), 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1146, 1148 (2007). That case involved an employee who worked substantially a full six-month period apart from two weeks of illness. That decision had declined to count ordinary weekends off against the worker.

The panel noted the similarity to the judge’s 5.95-month calculation in Valentine’s case and described possible substantial compliance. It expressly presented those comments as nonbinding recommendations for the judge’s consideration.

The operative order in Valentine rescinded the findings and returned the case for a complete record and a new decision. Employment length, the nature of the injuries and the medical evidence still needed proper attention.

Keep the employment timeline and the medical explanation connected

Start with the hiring records, dates of service, pay statements, time records and any interruptions or later return to the same employer. Identify which dates are disputed and why. A count of paid shifts may tell a different story from the full period of employment, so the basis of the calculation should be clear.

Separately, obtain reports identifying the diagnoses, relevant work events and medical reasoning about each claimed condition. An off-work note can document absence while providing little explanation of injury or causation.

Valentine shows why both records matter. The employer’s defense needed adequate proof of employment length; the claimed physical and psychiatric conditions needed their own medical foundation. A fair decision required those issues to be identified and supported separately.

Our Johnson v. MHX analysis examines the sudden-and-extraordinary exception after a train collision. For a disputed psychiatric-injury claim, see our California workers’ compensation practice.