What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the Findings of Fact of October 17, 2023, amended the claim from cumulative trauma to specific injury, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings on statute of limitations and tolling issues.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact of October 17, 2023, which the WCAB granted, rescinding those findings and substituting a new finding, then returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings on statute of limitations and tolling issues.
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.
The WCAB found that the statute of limitations and tolling issues regarding the specific injury claim require further proceedings and determination by the WCJ due to conflicting evidence about notice and knowledge of the injury and rights.
From the decision · page 6For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, that defendant's petition for reconsideration is GRANTED, and that as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, the Findings of Fact of October 17, 2023 are RESCINDED, and the following Finding and Order is SUBSTITUTED in their place:
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's deposition on May 20, 2015, provided defendant with knowledge of the specific injury claim.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact was central to the WCJ's conclusion that the statute of limitations was tolled because defendant had knowledge but failed to notify applicant of his rights.
From the decision · page 3In his Opinion on Decision, the WCJ cites Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 768] and concludes that the one-year Statute of Limitations was tolled because, due to applicant's deposition of May 20, 2015 and/or Dr. Bhatia's
Dr. Bhatia's May 16, 2019 report indicated applicant sustained a specific injury in March 2012.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This report was relied upon to support tolling of the statute of limitations due to defendant's knowledge of the injury and failure to notify applicant.
From the decision · page 5Finally, we note the WCJ also relied upon PQME Bhatia's May 16, 2019 report, which found that applicant sustained a specific injury, to conclude that the one-year Statute of Limitations was tolled at that time because the report triggered defendant's duty to advise applicant of his right to file a specific injury claim. As with applicant's deposition in which he testified that he sustained a specific injury around March 2012, it would appear from Dr. Bhatia's report that both applicant and defendant may have had equal knowledge of his workers' compensation rights. Here again, the WCJ must revisit and determine whether defendant nevertheless had a duty to notify applicant of his right to file a specific injury claim.
Applicant's deposition testimony conflicted on reasons for not reporting injury, including fear of losing work and lack of employer notification.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The WCJ must consider this conflicting testimony in determining tolling of the statute of limitations.
From the decision · page 5Concerning the foregoing issues, we note it is apparent from applicant's deposition that he did have actual notice that he suffered a specific work injury, but he never informed AGR Contracting about it. However, applicant's deposition testimony is in conflict over the reasons for his failure to report the specific injury. Although applicant testified that his employer "never told us there was a doctor or somebody where we could report," his testimony also includes two references to his fear of losing work if he reported a work injury. The WCJ should consider this conflicting testimony in addressing whether or not the one-year Statute of Limitations was tolled after March 2012 or after May 20, 2015, and if so, when the tolling started.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Dr. Bhatia's May 16, 2019 report suggested that applicant sustained a specific industrial injury to his back, neck, and shoulders in March 2012, which was a basis for tolling the statute of limitations.
The report was relied upon by the WCJ to conclude that the statute of limitations was tolled because the defendant had knowledge of the injury but failed to notify the applicant of his workers' compensation rights.
From the decision · page 5Finally, we note the WCJ also relied upon PQME Bhatia's May 16, 2019 report, which found that applicant sustained a specific injury, to conclude that the one-year Statute of Limitations was tolled at that time because the report triggered defendant's duty to advise applicant of his right to file a specific injury claim. As with applicant's deposition in which he testified that he sustained a specific injury around March 2012, it would appear from Dr. Bhatia's report that both applicant and defendant may have had equal knowledge of his workers' compensation rights. Here again, the WCJ must revisit and determine whether defendant nevertheless had a duty to notify applicant of his right to file a specific injury claim.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726
Labor Code section 5405 and Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726 tolling rule
The WCJ applied this standard to determine whether the statute of limitations was tolled due to defendant's knowledge and failure to notify applicant of workers' compensation rights.
From the decision · page 3In his Opinion on Decision, the WCJ cites Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 768] and concludes that the one-year Statute of Limitations was tolled because, due to applicant's deposition of May 20, 2015 and/or Dr. Bhatia's
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's deposition testimony conflicted about reasons for failure to report injury, including fear of losing work and lack of employer notification of reporting procedures.
From the decision · page 5Concerning the foregoing issues, we note it is apparent from applicant's deposition that he did have actual notice that he suffered a specific work injury, but he never informed AGR Contracting about it. However, applicant's deposition testimony is in conflict over the reasons for his failure to report the specific injury. Although applicant testified that his employer "never told us there was a doctor or somebody where we could report," his testimony also includes two references to his fear of losing work if he reported a work injury. The WCJ should consider this conflicting testimony in addressing whether or not the one-year Statute of Limitations was tolled after March 2012 or after May 20, 2015, and if so, when the tolling started.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.