What the panel ordered
The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant's claim is time-barred under Labor Code section 5405 and denied the petition for reconsideration.
Petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's January 7, 2022 Findings of Fact decision on statute of limitations was granted to allow further study; the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration.
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 WCJ found the employer met its duty to provide a claim form and notice, and the applicant filed the claim more than one year after the injury, so the claim is time-barred under section 5405 without equitable tolling.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on January 7, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that pursuant to Labor Code section 54052, applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits was time-barred, whereby resulting in her taking nothing from her claims filed herein.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's injury occurred on May 27, 2016, but the application for adjudication of claim was not filed until November 14, 2019, more than one year later.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Filing after one year bars the claim under Labor Code section 5405.
From the decision · page 2In the instant case, applicant's injury occurred on May 27, 2016. Applicant did not file her application for adjudication of claim until November 14, 2019. Applicant therefore filed her claim in excess of the one-year period under section 5405(a).
Employer witnesses credibly testified that the applicant was provided a claim form and notice of workers' compensation rights shortly after the injury.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This satisfied the employer's duty under Labor Code section 5401(a), so the statute of limitations was not tolled.
From the decision · page 3Here, as noted by the WCJ in her Report, based on the testimonies of employer witnesses Robert Delgado and Gloria Leyva-Sanchez, the employer met its statutory duties by timely providing applicant with a claim form and other workers' compensation documents. (Report, p. 2.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5405
An application for adjudication of claim must be filed within one year of the date of injury or last benefit to avoid being time-barred under Labor Code section 5405.
Applicant filed more than one year after injury, so claim is barred.
From the decision · page 2Generally, the filing of an application commences proceedings before the WCAB. (Lab. Code, § 5500; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10450.) The time limitations for commencing proceedings are set forth in section 5405 as follows:
Labor Code section 5401(a)
An employer has a duty to inform an injured employee of workers' compensation rights when the employer has knowledge of the injury, and failure to do so equitably tolls the statute of limitations under Labor Code section 5401(a).
Employer provided claim form and notice, so no equitable tolling applies.
From the decision · page 2However, pursuant to section 5401(a), an employer has a duty to inform an injured employee of their workers' compensation rights when the employer has actual or constructive knowledge of a work-related injury. Failing to meet that duty equitably tolls the above time limits. (Kaiser Found. Hosps. Permanente Medical Grp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57, 66 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411]; Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726, 728 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 768].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Credibility determinations of employer witnesses Robert Delgado and Gloria Leyva-Sanchez that the employer provided the applicant with a claim form and notice of rights
From the decision · page 3Here, as noted by the WCJ in her Report, based on the testimonies of employer witnesses Robert Delgado and Gloria Leyva-Sanchez, the employer met its statutory duties by timely providing applicant with a claim form and other workers' compensation documents. (Report, p. 2.)
Applicant's testimony that she was not given a claim form at the time of injury was found not credible
From the decision · page 7On the issue of the claim form, applicant testified when she reported the accident of May 27, 2016 to Robert Delgado it was in person and she was not given any paperwork. She also testified she got an attorney for the motor vehicle accident and received treatment until she was told they could no longer provide treatment. Applicant testified that at the end of 2019 she was still in pain and was told she could still file a workers' compensation claim. Applicant also testified she had a work injury where she injured her ankle while at the courthouse. She was given a form to fill out (in 2018) and was sent for medical treatment, she described that as a minor injury (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence October 6, 2021, page 3, page 5). Applicant's testimony was in 2018 she was given treatment and a claim form following a work related ankle injury. However there was no application filed for the May 27, 2016 injury until November 14, 2019.
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.