Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Reynolds v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 726
The one-year statute of limitations does not apply when the employer knew of a possible industrial injury but failed to advise the employee of his potential rights to workers' compensation benefits.
Applied to determine that applicant's claim was not barred by statute of limitations due to insufficient notice by employer.
From the decision · page 2The court in Reynolds v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cal. Nov. 4, 1974), 12
Cal. 3d 726, 117 Cal. Rptr. 79, 527 P.2d 631, 1974 Cal. LEXIS 259 made clear
the purpose of California workers' compensation notice is to protect and
preserve the rights of an injured employee who may be ignorant of the
procedures or, indeed, the very existence of the workmen's compensation law.
Since the employer is generally in a better position to be aware of the employee's
rights, it is proper that it should be charged with the responsibility of notifying
the employee that there is a possibility he may have a claim for workmen's
compensation benefits. Id. 12 Cal. 3d 726, 729.
City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 467
An applicant will not be charged with knowledge that his disability is job related without medical advice to that effect unless the applicant's training, intelligence and qualifications are such that the applicant should have recognized the relationship between the known adverse factors involved in his employment and his disability.
Applied to assess applicant's knowledge and training in relation to his awareness of his disability being work related.
From the decision · page 7effect unless the nature of the disability and applicant's training, intelligence and qualifications are
such that applicant should have recognized the relationship between the known adverse factors
involved in his employment and his disability'" citing City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals
Bd. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 467, 473. Id. p:10; ll: 19-23. The City of Fresno court concluded:
"Under these circumstances we conclude there is substantial evidence to support the board's
decision that applicant was not chargeable with knowledge that his disability was work related.
Applicant did not have the training or qualifications to recognize the relationship between the
known adverse factors involved in his employment and his disability. Applicant's expression of
the belief, shared by most disabled employees, that his employment caused his disability does not
mandate a contrary conclusion." Id. at 473.
County of Sacramento Sheriff's Dept. v. W.C.A.B. (Keillor) (2021) 86 Cal. Comp. Cases 845
Res judicata precludes parties from relitigating a cause of action finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction; collateral estoppel bars relitigation of issues necessarily decided in prior litigation.
Applied to determine that the Florida settlement did not bar applicant's claims under res judicata or collateral estoppel because it was not actually litigated.
From the decision · page 3In addition, we note that the California Court of Appeal has described the doctrine of res
judicata as having a double aspect: