Legal Opinion
Matea v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 21, 2006No. H029661PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, Acting P. J.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Aaron B. Matea sustained an admitted industrial injury when a rack of lumber fell on his left leg. In addition to his physical injury Matea alleged a resulting psychiatric injury, but at the time of his injury he had worked for respondent The Home Depot for less than six months. California’s workers’ compensation system is intended to guarantee compensation to employees injured in the course of their employment, but Labor Code section 3208.3, subdivision (d) 1 precludes compensation “for a psychiatric injury related to a claim…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial RelationsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Lamb v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Sanchez v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Hikida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.