There is a bank robbery and an employee victim of a violent act experiences a psych injury with 37% of the causation related to the industrial injury and 63% related to marital problems. Is the case compensable?

There is a bank robbery and an employee victim of a violent act experiences a psych injury with 37% of the causation related to the industrial injury and 63% related to marital problems. Is the case compensable?

• A. Compensable.
• B. Not compensable.
• C. Compensable only if industrial causation is the sole cause.
• D. Compensable only if marital problems are excluded.

Answer: (A)

The main concept is that a psych injury arising from a work-related event is compensable even when non-work factors are also involved, and the degree of industrial versus non-industrial causation can be apportioned for disability. Here, the bank robbery is a work-related violent act, and it caused a psych injury. Even though 63% of the causation comes from non-work factors (marital problems), the presence of a work-related factor means the claim is compensable. California law allows apportionment, so the portion of permanent disability attributable to the industrial cause (37%) can be separated from the non-industrial portion, but the injury remains compensable overall. So the case is compensable because a work-related factor contributed to the injury, and non-industrial factors do not negate compensability. The other options are not correct for the same reason: compensability does not require that industrial causes be the sole cause, and non-industrial factors do not automatically bar compensation.

The main concept is that a psych injury arising from a work-related event is compensable even when non-work factors are also involved, and the degree of industrial versus non-industrial causation can be apportioned for disability.

Here, the bank robbery is a work-related violent act, and it caused a psych injury. Even though 63% of the causation comes from non-work factors (marital problems), the presence of a work-related factor means the claim is compensable. California law allows apportionment, so the portion of permanent disability attributable to the industrial cause (37%) can be separated from the non-industrial portion, but the injury remains compensable overall.

So the case is compensable because a work-related factor contributed to the injury, and non-industrial factors do not negate compensability. The other options are not correct for the same reason: compensability does not require that industrial causes be the sole cause, and non-industrial factors do not automatically bar compensation.