Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Decision Date | 11 April 1983 |
Citation | 190 Cal.Rptr. 560,141 Cal.App.3d 778 |
Parties | 20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD of the State of California and Kevin Conway, Respondents. Civ. 65903. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Rowen, Swanson, Rose & Simon and Joel D. Swanson, Van Nuys, for petitioner.
Geffner & Satzman and Stephen Schwartz, Los Angeles, for respondent Conway.
No appearance for respondent Board.
Petitioner Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, permissibly self-insured, seeks review of the findings and annulment of an award by respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or Board) finding that respondent Kevin Conway sustained an injury to his psyche arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment with petitioner from September 1977 through December 11, 1977 with subsequent
temporary disability. Petitioner argues that there is not substantial evidence to support the findings of industrial injury and temporary disability. As we shall explain, petitioner is entitled to relief. In annulling the Board's decisions for lack of sufficient findings on the issue of injury, we do not reach the issue of temporary disability.
Applicant/respondent Kevin Conway alleged an injury to his psyche due to stress and strain in the course of his employment from September 1977 to December 11, 1977, as a studio transportation driver and accountant for petitioner Twentieth Century Fox. Petitioner denied industrial injury, claiming applicant's nervous breakdown was the result of applicant's screenplay having been rejected by Twentieth Century Fox, which was unrelated to his employment duties for petitioner.
The applicant testified that the stress at Fox was due to his having to work for "a very dangerous alcoholic" who was often inebriated at work and drove erratically. The applicant had to do the other man's work as well as his own. The applicant became aware of irregularities in purchase orders, billings and receipts in the Transportation Department, finding that he was expected to sign purchase orders for materials eventually put to private use. The demands of his work increased as his supervisor's condition deteriorated in December 1977. The applicant was then involved in a minor traffic accident, and on the same day his screenplay was rejected by the Story Department.
Dr. Alfred Bloch, a psychiatrist reporting on behalf of the applicant, diagnosed the applicant's psychiatric condition as:
Dr. Bloch explained the onset of applicant's disability as follows:
Based on Dr. Bloch's report and applicant's testimony, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found that applicant's psychiatric disease arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment.
Whether the Finding of Industrial Injury Is Supported by Substantial Evidence.
The determination of an industrial injury is governed by Labor Code section 3600, which requires that an injury arise out of employment, occur in the course of employment, and be proximately caused by the employment. 1 The conditions for a compensable injury are met where " 'the employment [is] one of the contributing causes without which the injury would not have occurred' " (Albertson's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bradley) (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 308, 316, 182 Cal.Rptr. 304, quoting from Madin v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 90, 292 P.2d 892.) To be a "contributing cause" of the injury, the employment itself must be a " 'positive factor influencing the course of disease' [citation]" (Bingham v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 842, 848, 68 Cal.Rptr. 410), or must play an "active role" in the development of the condition. (Albertson's, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at 317, 182 Cal.Rptr. 304.)
In evaluating injuries caused by stress, a subjective test is appropriate based on the concept that "[i]ndustry takes the employee as it finds him" (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 555, 559, 166 P.2d 908). "The proper focus of inquiry, then, is not on how much stress should be felt by an employee based on a 'normal' reaction to it, but how much stress is felt by an individual worker reacting uniquely to the work environment." (Albertson's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at 314, 182 Cal.Rptr. 304.) However, it is not sufficient for purposes of finding industrial causation "if the nature of the employee's duties merely provided a stage" for the injury (Transaction Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 233, 238, 137 Cal.Rptr. 142), "if the employment were an after the fact rationalization" (Albertson's, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at 315, 182 Cal.Rptr. 304), or if "the evidence established that the employment was a mere passive element that a non-industrial condition happened to have focused on." (Albertson's, supra, at 315, 182 Cal.Rptr. 304.) A finding of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Howland v. Balma
...(Sewell v. Bathey Mfg. Co. (1981) 103 Mich.App. 732, 303 N.W.2d 876, 878; see Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 778, 783-784, 190 Cal.Rptr. 560.) Thus, the Act relates to medical and/or occupational injuries, i.e., those risks to which the ......
-
Painter v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
...881 specifically discussed the medical reports at issue and the conflicts between them. In Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 778, 190 Cal.Rptr. 560, the court indicated the order consisted largely of quotes from the evidence, "instead of pr......
-
Cooper v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
...course of employment and be proximately caused by the employment. (Lab.Code, § 3600; 2 Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 778, 782-783, 190 Cal.Rptr. 560.) The crucial question in the instant action is whether there is a sufficient causal co......
-
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., GEORGIA-PACIFIC
..."an 'active' or 'positive' role in the development of the psychological condition." (See Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Conway), 141 Cal.App.3d 778, 190 Cal.Rptr. 560; Albertson's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bradley) (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 308, 317, 1......