What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration challenging the WCJ's June 21, 2022 Findings of Fact regarding the December 16, 2019 injury claim in ADJ14742380. The WCAB panel reviewed the Petition and the WCJ's report and denied the Petition.
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 applicant and her witness more credible than the defense witnesses regarding timely notice of the December 16, 2019 injury. The employer failed to provide notices relating to workers' compensation benefits, precluding a statute of limitations defense. The applicant was equitably estopped from the statute of limitations defense due to ignorance of her rights based on employer's conduct and statements.
From the decision · page 3The applicant's and defendant's versions of whether or not the December 16, 2019 automobile accident was reported were directly contrary and incompatible. I found the applicant and Barbara Clark's testimony to be more credible than the defendant's witnesses. Therefore, I determined that the applicant had timely reported the December 16, 2019 injury, that defendant's failure to provide notices relating to potential workers' compensation benefits precluded them from asserting a statute of limitations defense, and as a result found that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment on December 16, 2019 in ADJ14742380.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The applicant and Barbara Clark's testimony was more credible than the defense witnesses' testimony, which contained contradictions and inconsistencies.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This credibility finding supported the conclusion that the applicant timely reported the injury and that the employer had notice, precluding the statute of limitations defense.
From the decision · page 3The applicant's and defendant's versions of whether or not the December 16, 2019 automobile accident was reported were directly contrary and incompatible. I found the applicant and Barbara Clark's testimony to be more credible than the defendant's witnesses. Therefore, I determined that the applicant had timely reported the December 16, 2019 injury, that defendant's failure to provide notices relating to potential workers' compensation benefits precluded them from asserting a statute of limitations defense, and as a result found that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment on December 16, 2019 in ADJ14742380.
The employer failed to provide notices relating to potential workers' compensation benefits.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure precluded the employer from asserting a statute of limitations defense.
From the decision · page 6Where an employee is not provided notices relating to potential workers' compensation benefits, then the employer is precluded from asserting a statute of limitations defense. (Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726, 730 [117 Cal.Rptr. 79, 527 P.2d 631].) If the employer breaches its duty to provide notices, the employer bears the burden of showing that the employee had actual knowledge of her workers' compensation rights to prevent to tolling of
The applicant was ignorant of her workers' compensation rights and relied on the employer's statements that the accident was not a workers' compensation matter.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This ignorance and reliance estopped the employer from asserting the statute of limitations defense.
From the decision · page 7The circumstances in the case at issue are very different from those of the applicant in Hurwitz. There was no evidence presented that the applicant was pursuing a third-party claim related to the automobile accident or may have strategically delayed filing an application for the December 16, 2019 injury. Indeed the applicant testified that she asked if the accident may have been a workers' compensation matter, but she was told by Verlinda Montoya that the automobile accident was not covered by workers' compensation. (Testimony of the applicant, Summary of Evidence for the Trial on March 10, 2022, page 8, lines 33-37.) The applicant thereafter self-procured treatment and did not further discuss her injuries with her employer because she had been told that the accident was not a workers' compensation matter. (Id. at page 8, line 40 page 9, line 10.) This ignorance of the true facts and reliance on the words or conduct of the adverse party to the applicant's detriment means the defendant is equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense.
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.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code 5400, 5402(a), 5403, 3202.5; Garza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 312
The WCJ applied these statutes and case law to determine that the applicant timely reported the injury and that the statute of limitations defense was precluded due to employer's failure to provide notices and the applicant's lack of knowledge of her rights.
From the decision · page 4The injured worker may not maintain a claim for workers' compensation unless written notice of the claimed injury is served on the employer within thirty days of the injury. (Labor Code § 5400.) Labor Code § 5402(a) provides that, "...[k]nowledge of an injury, obtained from any source, on the part of an employer, his or her managing agent, superintendent, foreman, or other person in authority, or knowledge of the assertion of a claim of injury sufficient to afford opportunity to the employer to make an investigation into the facts, is equivalent to service under Section 5400." However, a failure to give notice under Labor Code § 5400 will not bar recovery if the employer was not misled or prejudiced. (Labor Code § 5403.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The testimony of the applicant and Barbara Clark was found more credible than the defense witnesses' testimony, which contained contradictions and inconsistencies undermining their credibility.
From the decision · page 3The applicant's and defendant's versions of whether or not the December 16, 2019 automobile accident was reported were directly contrary and incompatible. I found the applicant and Barbara Clark's testimony to be more credible than the defendant's witnesses. Therefore, I determined that the applicant had timely reported the December 16, 2019 injury, that defendant's failure to provide notices relating to potential workers' compensation benefits precluded them from asserting a statute of limitations defense, and as a result found that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment on December 16, 2019 in ADJ14742380.
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.