Join us in congratulating Brian Ulyatt and Suzanna Thach on their well earned and deserved promotions to Associate Partner!
Brian Ulyatt, Associate Partner
Mullen & Filippi LLP, Santa Rosa, CA
Brian’s path to this milestone has been marked by dedication, discipline, and a drive to serve. After nearly a decade in the U.S. Navy, he set his sights on a new mission—law. He earned his J.D. from the University of San Francisco School of Law, where he was honored with the pro bono award for his volunteer work supporting active duty servicemembers and veterans.
Since joining Mullen & Filippi’s Santa Rosa office, Brian has quickly distinguished himself as a trusted advocate—both for his clients and within the firm. His strong foundation, combined with his work ethic, professionalism, and client-first approach, have made this next step well earned and deserved.
Congratulations, Brian! We look forward to all the great things ahead for you at Mullen & Filippi!
Suzanna Thach, Associate Partner
Mullen & Filippi LLP, San Francisco, CA
Suzanna began her journey in workers’ compensation law representing injured workers before transitioning to defense early on. Since joining Mullen & Filippi’s San Francisco office, she has become a trusted advocate for her clients—known for her thoughtful approach, deep understanding of the law and the workers’ compensation system, and her steady commitment to fair and just outcomes.
Suzanna brings both intellectual rigor and a balanced perspective to every case—qualities we know she’ll bring to her new role as an Associate Partner.
Congratulations, Suzanna! We look forward to seeing your continued success at Mullen & Filippi!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WCAB ISSUES PANEL DECISION ON ADDITIONAL PANELS
On June 18, 2025, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration After Reconsideration in Ana Monzon v. IHOP, Technology Ins. Co., (hereinafter, Monzon), wherein the Appeals Board found that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) erroneously proceeded to trial on Permanent Disability without a psychiatric medical-legal evaluation, even though the Applicant did not seek a psychiatric panel QME evaluation, nor did she raise the issue of psychiatric permanent disability in her Petition for Reconsideration.
In Monzon, Applicant alleged a December 30, 2018 date of injury to her cervical spine, right shoulder, headaches, psych, eyes and internal systems after she was hit by a refrigerator door.
The Applicant presented for panel QME evaluations in neurology, orthopedic medicine, internal medicine and ophthalmology. Although the applicant was evaluated by a psychologist, the record was devoid of a panel QME in psychology or psychiatry.
In November 2024 (almost six years after the alleged injury) Defendant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) to a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) on the issue of permanent disability, among others.
On March 6, 2025, the parties proceeded to trial. The parties stipulated that Applicant sustained injuries to her cervical spine, right shoulder, headaches, and psyche. Injuries to her eyes and internal systems were alleged. The matter was submitted following service of ratings from the Disability Evaluation Unit (DEU).
On April 1, 2025, the WCJ issued a Findings and Award (F&A) at 26% permanent disability, findings in part, that Applicant sustained injury to her head, cervical spine, right shoulder and psyche. Notably, the WCJ did not find injury to Applicant’s eyes or internal system. With respect to Applicant’s psychiatric injury, the WCJ noted that “there is no permanent disability for the psychiatric component of this case as set forth in Labor Code section 3208.3(d).”
The Applicant subsequently filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration, contending that the WCJ erred in relying on the ophthalmology panel QME over Applicant’s treating physicians and that the WCJ should have ordered the development of the record on Applicant’s visual complaints.
In its decision, the Appeals Board concurred with the WCJ’s finding of no injury for Applicant’s visual or internal complaints. However, the Appeals Board said that the basis for the WCJ’s determination relating to Applicant’s psychiatric impairment unclear.
The Board noted that LC Section 4061(i) states that:
No issue relating to a dispute over the existence or extent of permanent impairment and limitations resulting from the injury may be the subject of a declaration of readiness to proceed unless there has first been a medical evaluation by a treating physician and by either an agreed or qualified medical evaluator.
The Board noted that Applicant sustained an admitted injury to her psyche and that she was evaluated by a psychologist who diagnosed her with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety. As a result of this, the board took issue with the fact that Defendant had filed a DOR when there was no medical-legal report in psychiatry or psychology “in violation of section 4061(h).” The board recognized that the dissenting panelist placed the failure to obtain such a medical-legal report on Applicant but said that “it is defendants who filed the DOR without proceeding to a QME or AME and without a stipulation by applicant that she was not claiming permanent disability.” The Board said that LC Section 4061(i) clearly requires the parties to proceed to a medical-legal evaluation before the filing of a DOR and that “defendant may not use applicant’s lack of diligence as an excuse to circumvent this statutory requirement.”
Further, the board said that the WCJ should not have gone forward with trial before confirming whether the Applicant was claiming impairment for psychiatric permanent disability and that if it was her intention to do so, the WCJ should have ordered that she proceed to a panel QME. The board noted that because the record did not reflect whether Applicant’s psychiatric injury resulted in temporary disability or permanent disability, the Board would grant Applicant’s petition and defer issues as to permanent disability, apportionment and attorney’s fees.
The board recognized that the WCJ cited LC Section 3208(d), which refers to a minimum six-month employment requirement for psychiatric impairment to become compensable. The board said that Applicant’s trial testimony indicated that she worked for IHOP for several years before her injury and that the basis for the WCJ to cite LC Section 3208.3(d) was unclear. Thus, the WCJ was instructed on remand to clarify the basis of the determination that no psychiatric impairment was available to Applicant.
The panel majority said that the issue of whether an applicant sustained a compensable psychiatric injury requires multiple steps, including whether the applicant sustained permanent impairment and whether the impairment resulted from direct industrious exposure or as a compensable consequence of physical injuries. If the applicant’s psychiatric impairment is determined to be a compensable consequence type injury, then the court must determine whether the exceptions outlined in LC Section 4660.1(c)(2)(A) and (B) regarding violent acts or catastrophic injury apply.
In this case, the Board said that there was insufficient information to determine whether Applicant sustained psychiatric impairment. As such, the matter was remanded to the trial level with instructions to the WCJ to clarify whether it was the WCJ’s intention to bar impairment based on the six-month employment threshold as described in LC Section 3208(d), or whether the decision was based on the exceptions to the prohibitions on psychiatric impairment as a compensable consequence of physical injuries, as outlined in LC Section 4660.1. As a result of these issues, the Board granted Applicant’s petition and remanded the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision consistent with the board’s opinion.
In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Commissioner Razo agreed that the WCJ adequately weighed the evidence with respect to Applicant’s alleged eye injury. However, he disagreed with the panel majority’s opinions that the record required further development with respect to impairment for Applicant’s psychiatric injury. Commissioner Razo noted that Applicant’s petition was limited to the issue of Applicant’s ophthalmologic injury and did not even raise the issue of psychiatric impairment. Further, Applicant offered no evidence of psychiatric impairment in the record and she did not pursue a psychiatric medical-legal evaluation pursuant to LC Sections 4062.1 or 4062.2. Commissioner Razo noted that Defendant had accepted liability for Applicant’s psychiatric injury and that the WCJ’s F&A includes a provision for future medical treatment. Commissioner Razo found no good cause to order the development of the record or further delay final adjudication of the matter. Commissioner Razo said he would deny Applicant’s petition for the same reasons detailed in the WCJ’s Report.
PRACTICE TIP: Monzon is a panel decision only and is not binding precedent. However, practitioners should be aware that if an injury to a specific body system or condition is pled and there is medical evidence substantiating injury but no medical-legal evaluation, parties may no longer be able to proceed to a trial on impairment without a stipulation from applicant that he or she does not wish to seek impairment for the injury.
This Bulletin was written by Steve Rosendin, Associate Partner in Mullen & Filippi’s San Francisco office.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
