ADJ10166893 · February 7, 2022

The WCJ found the employer did not have notice of the injury before termination, and none of the exceptions to the post-termination bar applied, thus barring the specific injury claim.

From the decision · page 5The applicant testified that she told a co-worker after the injury, "my brain is hurting." (report of Kenneth Geiger, M.D., January 31, 2020, pg. 3, 2nd paragraph [Board Exh. X].) On the whole, however, the testimony of the employer witnesses was more reliable and credible than that of the applicant. The WCJ determined the employer did not have notice of the injury before the notice of termination or layoff on October 10, 2014, and Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)(A) does not apply as an exception to the post-termination defense.

Applicant did not report the injury to employer before termination on October 10, 2014

Favours Defendant prevailed

Employer did not have notice of injury before termination, barring the claim under Labor Code 3600(a)(10)

From the decision · page 5The applicant testified that she told a co-worker after the injury, "my brain is hurting." (report of Kenneth Geiger, M.D., January 31, 2020, pg. 3, 2nd paragraph [Board Exh. X].) On the whole, however, the testimony of the employer witnesses was more reliable and credible than that of the applicant. The WCJ determined the employer did not have notice of the injury before the notice of termination or layoff on October 10, 2014, and Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)(A) does not apply as an exception to the post-termination defense.

No medical records showing treatment for headaches before employment ended

Favours Defendant prevailed

No evidence of injury before termination to satisfy exceptions to post-termination bar

From the decision · page 5The applicant testified that she did not seek any medical treatment while she was working and that the only doctor seen while she was still working was her dentist (MOH/SOE, May 23, 2017, 5: 24.5 - 6:1). The first Kaiser record addressing the applicant's headaches is October 22, 2014. The doctor advised the applicant to take Ibuprofen for headaches. (Kaiser record, 10/22/2014, Bates Stamp pg. 20.) The applicant was seen a year later by Steven Luh, M.D., who indicated that the applicant was "unable to work at this time due to the following medical issues: Anxiety, headache, insomnia; she is anticipated to return in three weeks. She has been advised to seek workers' compensation." (Kenneth Geiger, M.D., January 31, 2020, Medical Records, pg. 5 [Board Exh. X].) There were no medical records showing treatment for headaches that existed before the applicant terminated employment. Therefore, Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)(B) does not apply.

Applicant suffered a minor head injury at work on July 24, 2014, reached maximum medical improvement, headaches resolved, no ratable permanent neurological disability, no temporary total disability on neurological basis.

From the decision · page 4The panel QME, Kenneth Geiger, M.D., opined that the applicant reached maximum medical improvement from a neurological perspective. Based on her history, the applicant suffered a minor head injury at the workplace on July 24, 2014. The applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma claim to her neurological system. The headaches resolved, and the applicant does not have any ratable permanent neurological disability. The injuries did not cause any temporary total disability on a neurological basis. (Kenneth Geiger, M.D., January 31, 2020, Medical Records, pg. 5 [Board Exh. X].)

Applicant was unable to work due to anxiety, headache, insomnia; advised to seek workers' compensation.

From the decision · page 5The applicant testified that she did not seek any medical treatment while she was working and that the only doctor seen while she was still working was her dentist (MOH/SOE, May 23, 2017, 5: 24.5 - 6:1). The first Kaiser record addressing the applicant's headaches is October 22, 2014. The doctor advised the applicant to take Ibuprofen for headaches. (Kaiser record, 10/22/2014, Bates Stamp pg. 20.) The applicant was seen a year later by Steven Luh, M.D., who indicated that the applicant was "unable to work at this time due to the following medical issues: Anxiety, headache, insomnia; she is anticipated to return in three weeks. She has been advised to seek workers' compensation." (Kenneth Geiger, M.D., January 31, 2020, Medical Records, pg. 5 [Board Exh. X].) There were no medical records showing treatment for headaches that existed before the applicant terminated employment. Therefore, Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)(B) does not apply.

California Labor Code

Labor Code 3600(a)(10) and its exceptions (A) to (D)

Applied to bar the specific injury claim as post-termination and none of the exceptions applied.

From the decision · page 4The applicant filed the claim form in October 2015, wherein she alleged a specific injury on June 30, 2014. The claim form thus is dated about a year after her employment ended on October 10, 2014, and it is consequently a post- termination claim. Labor Code § 3600(a)(10) provides that:

Employer witnesses' credible testimony that applicant never reported injury before termination

From the decision · page 5According to the employer witnesses, the applicant never reported any specific or cumulative trauma injuries while employed by Defendant. Stephanie Simpson is a senior human resource liaison at Panasonic (MOH/SOE, April 3, 2017, 11.5 § 12.5). The applicant never reported any injuries. The first time she learned the applicant was claiming a work injury was on October 27, 2015, more than a year after the applicant's employment ended on October 10, 2014 (MOH/SOE, April 3, 2017, 13.5 16).

Employer witnesses' credible testimony that applicant never reported headaches or hitting head at work

Applicant's testimony that she told a co-worker 'my brain is hurting' after injury

From the decision · page 5The applicant testified that she told a co-worker after the injury, "my brain is hurting." (report of Kenneth Geiger, M.D., January 31, 2020, pg. 3, 2nd paragraph [Board Exh. X].) On the whole, however, the testimony of the employer witnesses was more reliable and credible than that of the applicant. The WCJ determined the employer did not have notice of the injury before the notice of termination or layoff on October 10, 2014, and Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)(A) does not apply as an exception to the post-termination defense.