SIMILARCASE

Loading

ADJ14870064 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ14870064 · April 2, 2024

Petition for Reconsideration denied; WCJ's decision affirmed that applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 1
Authorities named: 2
District office: Fresno

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied; WCJ's decision affirmed that applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the January 11, 2024 Amended Findings, Award & Opinion on Decision (F&A) that found applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Statute of limitationsApplicant prevailedheart

The WCJ found the applicant's first date of knowledge sufficient to establish a date of injury was July 1, 2021, making the claim timely filed on July 7, 2021, within the one-year statute of limitations under section 5405.

From the decision · page 2On January 11, 2024, the WCJ issued the F&A, finding in relevant part that "applicant's cumulative trauma is not barred by the Statute of Limitations." (Finding of Fact No. 5.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision explains that applicant's first date of knowledge sufficient to establish a date of injury pursuant to section 5412 was July 1, 2021. Accordingly, the Application for Adjudication of Claim filed on July 7, 2021 was timely. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 9.)

The facts that decided it

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Applicant's credible testimony that she did not have knowledge of the industrial cause of her heart condition until July 2021 after speaking with officers at work.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established the date of knowledge and date of injury under Labor Code section 5412, making the claim timely filed within one year under section 5405.

From the decision · page 6The first evidence in the record of applicant's knowledge occurs during the week of July 1, 2021, when applicant returned to work after an extended medical absence. Applicant's testimony was that upon her return to work, she was speaking with some of the officers who recommended she file a claim for workers' compensation benefits. (Minutes, at p. 4:2.) The WCJ found applicant's testimony to be fully credible (Opinion on Decision, at p. 8), and we accord to that determination the great weight to which it is entitled. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)

Lack of medical records from applicant's cardiologist to establish knowledge in 2020; only QME reports and deposition were submitted.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without medical evidence showing knowledge in 2020, the claim could not be barred by the statute of limitations starting then.

From the decision · page 5Here, we are not persuaded that applicant obtained the requisite knowledge of the industrial causation of her disability in May, 2020, sufficient to commence the running of the statute of limitations. While applicant was reportedly advised in 2020 by her cardiologist to avoid stress, the only medical evidence in the record is the QME's reports and deposition, and the records from applicant's cardiologist were not submitted. Thus, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that applicant was informed in 2020 that her work caused her cardiac-related disability, or that applicant was aware she had sustained a cumulative injury. (See County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Nelson-Watkins) (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1282, 1285-1286 [2018 Cal. Wrk. Comp.