What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant relied on initial incomplete and inaccurate medical report to deny claim, which undermined public policy and delayed applicant's knowledge.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the finding that statute of limitations did not bar the claim.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ's Report observes that defendant's Petition does not contest the applicability of
the presumption of section 3212.1, or the WCJ's determination that the reporting of Dr. Padova
was not substantial medical evidence until his deposition was taken on November 13, 2019.
(Report, at p. 3.) The WJC observes that defendant erroneously relied on Dr. Padova's "incomplete
and inaccurate" initial report, and that the application of the statute of limitations under the
circumstances undermines public policy. (Ibid.)
Applicant did not have training or qualifications to recognize relationship between employment exposures and his cancer disability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the finding that applicant was not chargeable with knowledge of industrial causation before medical advice in 2019.
From the decision · page 10Under 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.
Applicant's credible testimony that early medical diagnoses were equivocal and conflicting, causing reasonable doubts about diagnosis and industrial causation.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the finding that applicant did not have knowledge of compensable disability until medical advice in 2019.
From the decision · page 13We agree with the WCJ's finding that, given the unique and complex medical
scenario outlined in this case, the applicant did not and should not have known
of his industrial occupational disease until his 2008 diagnosis of cancer at the
base of the tongue. Applicant was given a number of diagnoses, including cat
scratch fever, and even testified that he was told that the mass could be
congenital. Although squamous cell carcinoma was suspected, the early medical
reports make clear that scans and biopsies were never definitive. Most
importantly, the applicant testified that the diagnoses were always presented to
him in an equivocal manner. The WCJ found his testimony in this regard
credible, and because a WCJ has the benefit of viewing witnesses' live
testimony, the WCJ's credibility determinations are entitled to "great weight."
[Citation.] Given the disparate diagnoses given to the applicant when he first
sought medical treatment, the fact that biopsies and scans were producing
conflicting results, and the equivocal language communicated to the applicant,
it would be understandable for a lay person such as the applicant to have
reasonable doubts as to a diagnosis even when the weight of the medical
evidence pointed to squamous cell carcinoma.