What the panel ordered
The WCAB denied defendant's petition for reconsideration and affirmed that the applicant's injury claim is not barred by the statute of limitations and that the WCAB retains jurisdiction over the claim.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration issued by the WCAB on January 31, 2022, which found applicant's injury claim was not barred by the statute of limitations and retained jurisdiction over the claim.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold January 31, 2022.
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 applicant's claim was timely filed within the tolled one-year limitations period under Labor Code section 5405 due to defendant's failure to provide required notices, which tolled the statute until the applicant gained actual knowledge of his rights. The five-year limitation under section 5410 did not apply as the injury claim was not previously resolved and no petition to reopen was filed.
From the decision · page 5Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 23, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the Application for Adjudication of Claim (Application) was filed on January 9, 2019, more than five years after the date of injury, and that applicant's claim is barred by the five-year limitations period defined in Labor Code section 5410.3
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant failed to provide required notices to applicant, which tolled the statute of limitations until applicant gained actual knowledge of his rights.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure constituted prejudice to applicant and allowed the claim to be timely filed within the tolled period.
From the decision · page 3As the WCJ noted in his January 20, 2021, Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), "Although a claim form was provided, Defendant did not offer proof of the notices (in Spanish) that would have accompanied the claim form." (Report, p. 3.) Based thereon, it is clear that defendant's failure to provide applicant with the notice to which he was entitled constitutes "prejudice" that applicant encountered.
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.
Found applicant's condition to be permanent and stationary and discharged applicant to regular activities with no permanent disability.
From the decision · page 2received medical treatment from Kamran Aflatoon, D.O. / Concentra Medical Group, including a right tibia metal rod implant surgery. (See Joint Exh. D, Concentra Medical Group.) Defendant paid applicant temporary disability indemnity during the period from January 1, 2014, through October 20, 2014. (Joint Exh. G, Notice Regarding Temporary Disability Benefits.) On November 7, 2014, Dr. Aflatoon found applicant's condition to be permanent and stationary and he discharged applicant to "regular activities." (Joint Exh. D, p. 5 [EAMS p. 12].) Based on Dr. Aflatoon's statement that applicant had no permanent disability, applicant was not paid permanent disability indemnity benefits. (Joint Exh. F, Notice Regarding Permanent Disability Benefits, November 13, 2014.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57
The statute of limitations is tolled until the employee gains actual knowledge of his or her rights if the employer fails to provide required notice.
Applied to toll the one-year limitations period under Labor Code section 5405 due to defendant's failure to provide notice.
From the decision · page 3If the employee remains ignorant of his rights past the time the employer breaches its duty to notify, the employee will be prejudiced from the date of breach until the employee gains actual knowledge that he may be entitled to benefits under the workers' compensation system. By promoting the purpose of the notice statute in this manner, we accord weight to the Legislature's choice following Reynolds to modify the Labor Code's notice requirements rather than to alter the statute of limitations. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3rd 57, 65 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411], emphasis added.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant did not offer proof of required notices (in Spanish) accompanying the claim form, constituting prejudice to applicant.
From the decision · page 3As the WCJ noted in his January 20, 2021, Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), "Although a claim form was provided, Defendant did not offer proof of the notices (in Spanish) that would have accompanied the claim form." (Report, p. 3.) Based thereon, it is clear that defendant's failure to provide applicant with the notice to which he was entitled constitutes "prejudice" that applicant encountered.
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.