RTGR Law LLP | Office Locations
510.338.3166   510.338.3167

Our Blog

Managers and Supervisors Can Attend Psyche Depositions

Managers and Supervisors Can Attend Psyche Depositions

A WCAB panel affirmed the right of employer representatives to be present at depositions in psyche injury claims.  In a recent panel decision, the WCAB held that a claimant’s direct manager or supervisor can attend the applicant’s deposition, as opposed to someone from Human Resources or Risk Management.  Padilla v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The workers’ compensation judge in the case issued a protective order at applicant’s request, ruling that only a representative from HR or claims management could attend the applicant’s deposition.  Essentially, the judge allowed the applicant to choose the employer representative in his case.

Applicant’s attorney argued that the applicant felt uncomfortable testifying about his psychiatric condition while the applicant’s manager was in the room.  The defense argued, in part, that the applicant’s direct supervisor was in the best position to observe the applicant’s testimony and assess his credibility.  The judge agreed with the applicant but the WCAB overturned that ruling, reaffirming the employer’s right to choose its own representative.

This case follows another recent WCAB ruling stating the defendant in a psyche claim is entitled to ask all reasonable questions regarding an applicant’s history that might lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.  Eutsey v. City and County of San Francisco. The WCAB panel in that case noted that by raising psyche as an issue, the applicant (not the employer) places his or her mental condition at issue.

In the Eutsey case, the panel overturned a Judge who sustained applicant’s attorney’s objection to questions regarding the applicant’s history going back more than 10 years before the date of injury.

The WCAB panel noted that the scope of inquiry in a deposition involving a psyche claim is not limited to questions that would themselves elicit relevant or admissible evidence but instead includes all questions that could lead to the discovery of such evidence.

Read together, the Padilla and Eutsey cases confirm the right of an employer representative to be present at psyche depositions, including direct supervisors, and further confirm the scope of deposition questioning to include all matters that might lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, including matters going back more than 10 years.


Tags: , ,

Leave a Comment