ADJ10166893 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted, November 23, 2021 Joint Findings and Award rescinded, matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings and decision

Petition for Reconsideration granted, WCJ decision rescinded, matter returned for further proceedings

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 15, 2021.

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 limitationsDefendant prevailedhead · psyche · headaches

The WCJ found the employer did not have notice of the injury before termination, and none of the exceptions to the post-termination bar applied, thus barring the specific injury claim.

From the decision · page 5The applicant testified that she told a co-worker after the injury, "my brain is hurting." (report of Kenneth Geiger, M.D., January 31, 2020, pg. 3, 2nd paragraph [Board Exh. X].) On the whole, however, the testimony of the employer witnesses was more reliable and credible than that of the applicant. The WCJ determined the employer did not have notice of the injury before the notice of termination or layoff on October 10, 2014, and Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)(A) does not apply as an exception to the post-termination defense.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant did not report the injury to employer before termination on October 10, 2014

Favours Defendant prevailed

Employer did not have notice of injury before termination, barring the claim under Labor Code 3600(a)(10)

From the decision · page 5The applicant testified that she told a co-worker after the injury, "my brain is hurting." (report of Kenneth Geiger, M.D., January 31, 2020, pg. 3, 2nd paragraph [Board Exh. X].) On the whole, however, the testimony of the employer witnesses was more reliable and credible than that of the applicant. The WCJ determined the employer did not have notice of the injury before the notice of termination or layoff on October 10, 2014, and Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)(A) does not apply as an exception to the post-termination defense.

No medical records showing treatment for headaches before employment ended

Favours Defendant prevailed

No evidence of injury before termination to satisfy exceptions to post-termination bar

From the decision · page 5The applicant testified that she did not seek any medical treatment while she was working and that the only doctor seen while she was still working was her dentist (MOH/SOE, May 23, 2017, 5: 24.5 - 6:1). The first Kaiser record addressing the applicant's headaches is October 22, 2014. The doctor advised the applicant to take Ibuprofen for headaches. (Kaiser record, 10/22/2014, Bates Stamp pg. 20.) The applicant was seen a year later by Steven Luh, M.D., who indicated that the applicant was "unable to work at this time due to the following medical issues: Anxiety, headache, insomnia; she is anticipated to return in three weeks. She has been advised to seek workers' compensation." (Kenneth Geiger, M.D., January 31, 2020, Medical Records, pg. 5 [Board Exh. X].) There were no medical records showing treatment for headaches that existed before the applicant terminated employment. Therefore, Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)(B) does not apply.

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.

QMERelied upon · neurology

Applicant suffered a minor head injury at work on July 24, 2014, reached maximum medical improvement, headaches resolved, no ratable permanent neurological disability, no temporary total disability on neurological basis.

From the decision · page 4The panel QME, Kenneth Geiger, M.D., opined that the applicant reached maximum medical improvement from a neurological perspective. Based on her history, the applicant suffered a minor head injury at the workplace on July 24, 2014. The applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma claim to her neurological system. The headaches resolved, and the applicant does not have any ratable permanent neurological disability. The injuries did not cause any temporary total disability on a neurological basis. (Kenneth Geiger, M.D., January 31, 2020, Medical Records, pg. 5 [Board Exh. X].)

otherPartially credited

Applicant was unable to work due to anxiety, headache, insomnia; advised to seek workers' compensation.

From the decision · page 5The applicant testified that she did not seek any medical treatment while she was working and that the only doctor seen while she was still working was her dentist (MOH/SOE, May 23, 2017, 5: 24.5 - 6:1). The first Kaiser record addressing the applicant's headaches is October 22, 2014. The doctor advised the applicant to take Ibuprofen for headaches. (Kaiser record, 10/22/2014, Bates Stamp pg. 20.) The applicant was seen a year later by Steven Luh, M.D., who indicated that the applicant was "unable to work at this time due to the following medical issues: Anxiety, headache, insomnia; she is anticipated to return in three weeks. She has been advised to seek workers' compensation." (Kenneth Geiger, M.D., January 31, 2020, Medical Records, pg. 5 [Board Exh. X].) There were no medical records showing treatment for headaches that existed before the applicant terminated employment. Therefore, Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)(B) does not apply.

ADJ10166893 · February 7, 2022

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

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

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page