What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant after prior decision on January 13, 2025, rescinding WCJ findings and returning matter for further proceedings; current decision denies the petition.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold January 13, 2025.
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.
Defendant failed to prove applicant knew or should have known of disability caused by employment before May 24, 2022, and no medical evidence showed disability before that date; applicant's suspicion alone insufficient to establish earlier date.
From the decision · page 3II. Defendant contends that the evidence establishes that applicant's section 5412 date of injury is April 21, 2016, or, alternatively, a date before June 19, 2019. Specifically, defendant argues that (1) the medical record shows that applicant had orthopedic complaints to her neck, back, and shoulders in 2016 that she believed were work- related; and (2) applicant was effectively disabled from work as a result of these orthopedic injuries as shown by an April 21, 2016 chiropractic finding that she had a limited range of motion of the spine, and a February 9, 2017 MRI finding evidencing that she had sustained disability. (Petition, pp. 5:12-7:2.) Under section 5412, "[t]he date of injury in cases of occupational diseases or cumulative injuries is that date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment." (Lab. Code, § 5412.) Whether an employee knew or should have known his disability was industrially caused is a question of fact. (City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 467, 471 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 53] (Johnson); Nielsen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was not disabled from work until May 2018, when taken off work for gastrointestinal symptoms, not orthopedic injury.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Shows no disability from orthopedic injury before May 2018, undermining defendant's claim of earlier injury date.
From the decision · page 4We previously explained that the evidence shows that applicant was never taken off work or subjected to work restrictions on an orthopedic basis, and that she was not disabled from work at all until May 2018, when she was taken off work based upon her gastrointestinal symptoms. (Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, January 13, 2025, p. 8.)
No medical evidence showed cumulative injury to spine, shoulders, and feet causing disability before May 24, 2022.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supports finding that applicant's date of injury under section 5412 is May 24, 2022, not earlier.
From the decision · page 4We also explained that the evidence shows that applicant sustained cumulative injury to her spine, shoulders, and feet which had ripened into disability as of May 24, 2022, when Dr. Mooney first reported that she had suffered cumulative trauma while working as a registered nurse and had been disabled as a result. (Id., p. 9.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5412
Under Labor Code section 5412, the date of injury in cases of occupational diseases or cumulative injuries is the date the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was caused by employment.
Defendant failed to prove applicant knew or should have known of disability before May 24, 2022.
From the decision · page 3II. Defendant contends that the evidence establishes that applicant's section 5412 date of injury is April 21, 2016, or, alternatively, a date before June 19, 2019. Specifically, defendant argues that (1) the medical record shows that applicant had orthopedic complaints to her neck, back, and shoulders in 2016 that she believed were work- related; and (2) applicant was effectively disabled from work as a result of these orthopedic injuries as shown by an April 21, 2016 chiropractic finding that she had a limited range of motion of the spine, and a February 9, 2017 MRI finding evidencing that she had sustained disability. (Petition, pp. 5:12-7:2.) Under section 5412, "[t]he date of injury in cases of occupational diseases or cumulative injuries is that date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment." (Lab. Code, § 5412.) Whether an employee knew or should have known his disability was industrially caused is a question of fact. (City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 467, 471 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 53] (Johnson); Nielsen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
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.