What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant testified she was never trained on how to report a workplace injury and never saw workers' compensation postings at the employer's site.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This testimony was unrebutted and supported the finding that the employer failed to provide required notice, estopping the statute of limitations defense.
From the decision · page 2At trial, applicant confirmed that she last worked for defendant in March of 2020. (Minutes
of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH & SOE), p. 2, lines 14-15.) She also testified to
receiving treatment from Dr. Chow and Dr. Chow signing off on her EDD form but failing to "tell
her that her injury was from work." (Id. at pp. 4-5.) She further testified that she was "given no
training on how to report a work injury" and did "not recall seeing any postings about workers'
compensation at the employer's site." (Id. at p. 2.) She noted that "nobody asked her if the pain
was work related" and "there was no employer investigation." (Id. at p. 3.)
Dr. Chow's medical reports did not indicate the injury or symptoms were work related; she checked boxes on EDD forms indicating complaints were not work related.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the finding that the applicant did not know and should not have known her injury was work related within the statute of limitations period.
From the decision · page 2On April 11, 2008, applicant sought treatment with chiropractor, Wendy Hon Chow.
(Exhibit C, p. 92.). Over the course of several years, Dr. Chow diagnosed applicant with sciatica,
lumbar radiculitis, lumbar myospasm, neuritis, lumbalgia, and myofascitis. (Id. at pp. 10, 18, 28,
34, 50-51, 55, 59, 79, 82, 88.) Applicant was taken on and off work by Dr. Chow on several
occasions. (Ibid.) Within her reports, however, Dr. Chow did not specify that applicant's
employment was the cause of her injury and/or symptoms.
Defendant failed to provide the applicant with required workers' compensation notices despite numerous opportunities.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Employer's failure to notify tolled the statute of limitations and estopped the defense.
From the decision · page 5Lastly, in Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726, 729 [39
Cal.Comp.Cases 768], the court explained that: "The clear purpose of these rules 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 he should be charged with the
responsibility of notifying the employee, under circumstances such as those existing here, that
there is a possibility he may have a claim for workmen's compensation benefits." In Reynolds, the
employer was precluded from raising a statute of limitations defense where the injured employee