What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; prior Findings and Award rescinded; new findings substituted; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings on deferred issues of last date of injurious exposure, date of injury under section 5412, and liability period under section 5500.5.
Petition for reconsideration granted, prior Findings and Award rescinded, new findings substituted, and matter returned to trial level for further proceedings on deferred issues.
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 and the Board concurred that the applicant sustained a single cumulative injury spanning employment with both employers, supported by QME Dr. Murphy's report and applicant's testimony about similar job duties.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ found applicant sustained a single cumulative injury spanning her employment with both Seenager and Pacifica. (Finding of Fact No. 1.) In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that QME Dr. Murphy found that applicant sustained a cumulative injury as a result of repetitive standing, walking, climbing, kneeling, squatting and lifting for both employers. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 5-6.) The Report further notes applicant's testimony that her work activities for Pacifica were "not significantly more or different than the ones for Seenager...she lifted people, not packages, the weights were equivalent; and 90% of her work required that she be on her feet." (Report, at p. 4.) Based on applicant's testimony, the description of her job duties and physical requirements of both positions, as well as the QME's causation analysis, the WCJ determined there to be but one cumulative injury spanning both employments. (Finding of Fact No. 1; Opinion on Decision at pp. 5-6.)
The Board deferred the determination of the last date of injurious exposure, the date of injury under section 5412, and the one-year liability period under section 5500.5 to the WCJ for further findings, as these are necessary to establish liability.
From the decision · page 6Accordingly, we will grant the Petition, rescind the F&A, and substitute new findings of fact that applicant sustained a single cumulative injury from November 18, 2019 to March 23, 2022. We will further defer the issues of the last date of injurious exposure, the date of injury pursuant to section 5412, and the period of liability pursuant to section 5500.5. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, the WCJ should make three determinations: (1) the last date of injurious
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
QME Dr. Murphy's report established that the applicant sustained a single cumulative injury from repetitive activities during employment with both Seenager and Pacifica.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This medical evidence was relied upon by the WCJ and the Board to find a single cumulative injury spanning both employments, resolving the dispute over the number and nature of injuries.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ found applicant sustained a single cumulative injury spanning her employment with both Seenager and Pacifica. (Finding of Fact No. 1.) In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that QME Dr. Murphy found that applicant sustained a cumulative injury as a result of repetitive standing, walking, climbing, kneeling, squatting and lifting for both employers. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 5-6.) The Report further notes applicant's testimony that her work activities for Pacifica were "not significantly more or different than the ones for Seenager...she lifted people, not packages, the weights were equivalent; and 90% of her work required that she be on her feet." (Report, at p. 4.) Based on applicant's testimony, the description of her job duties and physical requirements of both positions, as well as the QME's causation analysis, the WCJ determined there to be but one cumulative injury spanning both employments. (Finding of Fact No. 1; Opinion on Decision at pp. 5-6.)
Applicant's testimony that her job duties and physical activities for Pacifica were not significantly different from those for Seenager, including lifting similar weights and being on her feet 90% of the time.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This testimony supported the finding of a single cumulative injury spanning both employments.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ found applicant sustained a single cumulative injury spanning her employment with both Seenager and Pacifica. (Finding of Fact No. 1.) In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that QME Dr. Murphy found that applicant sustained a cumulative injury as a result of repetitive standing, walking, climbing, kneeling, squatting and lifting for both employers. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 5-6.) The Report further notes applicant's testimony that her work activities for Pacifica were "not significantly more or different than the ones for Seenager...she lifted people, not packages, the weights were equivalent; and 90% of her work required that she be on her feet." (Report, at p. 4.) Based on applicant's testimony, the description of her job duties and physical requirements of both positions, as well as the QME's causation analysis, the WCJ determined there to be but one cumulative injury spanning both employments. (Finding of Fact No. 1; Opinion on Decision at pp. 5-6.)
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 that applicant sustained a cumulative injury as a result of repetitive standing, walking, climbing, kneeling, squatting and lifting for both employers.
QME Dr. Murphy's report was relied upon by the WCJ and the Board to find a single cumulative injury spanning both employments.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ found applicant sustained a single cumulative injury spanning her employment with both Seenager and Pacifica. (Finding of Fact No. 1.) In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that QME Dr. Murphy found that applicant sustained a cumulative injury as a result of repetitive standing, walking, climbing, kneeling, squatting and lifting for both employers. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 5-6.) The Report further notes applicant's testimony that her work activities for Pacifica were "not significantly more or different than the ones for Seenager...she lifted people, not packages, the weights were equivalent; and 90% of her work required that she be on her feet." (Report, at p. 4.) Based on applicant's testimony, the description of her job duties and physical requirements of both positions, as well as the QME's causation analysis, the WCJ determined there to be but one cumulative injury spanning both employments. (Finding of Fact No. 1; Opinion on Decision at pp. 5-6.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5500.5
Labor Code section 5500.5(a) limits liability for cumulative injury claims to the one-year period prior to the earlier of the last date of injurious exposure or the date of injury under section 5412.
The Board deferred the determination of the last date of injurious exposure, the date of injury under section 5412, and the one-year liability period to the WCJ for further findings.
From the decision · page 6Accordingly, we will grant the Petition, rescind the F&A, and substitute new findings of fact that applicant sustained a single cumulative injury from November 18, 2019 to March 23, 2022. We will further defer the issues of the last date of injurious exposure, the date of injury pursuant to section 5412, and the period of liability pursuant to section 5500.5. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, the WCJ should make three determinations: (1) the last date of injurious
Lab. Code, 5412
Labor Code section 5412 defines the date of injury for cumulative trauma as the date of disability, which includes compensable temporary or permanent disability, not just medical treatment.
The Board noted the need for expert medical opinion to determine compensable disability and deferred the date of injury determination to the WCJ.
From the decision · page 6Accordingly, we will grant the Petition, rescind the F&A, and substitute new findings of fact that applicant sustained a single cumulative injury from November 18, 2019 to March 23, 2022. We will further defer the issues of the last date of injurious exposure, the date of injury pursuant to section 5412, and the period of liability pursuant to section 5500.5. Upon return of this matter to the trial level, the WCJ should make three determinations: (1) the last date of injurious
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony that her work activities for Pacifica were not significantly more or different than those for Seenager, including lifting weights and being on her feet 90% of the time.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ found applicant sustained a single cumulative injury spanning her employment with both Seenager and Pacifica. (Finding of Fact No. 1.) In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that QME Dr. Murphy found that applicant sustained a cumulative injury as a result of repetitive standing, walking, climbing, kneeling, squatting and lifting for both employers. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 5-6.) The Report further notes applicant's testimony that her work activities for Pacifica were "not significantly more or different than the ones for Seenager...she lifted people, not packages, the weights were equivalent; and 90% of her work required that she be on her feet." (Report, at p. 4.) Based on applicant's testimony, the description of her job duties and physical requirements of both positions, as well as the QME's causation analysis, the WCJ determined there to be but one cumulative injury spanning both employments. (Finding of Fact No. 1; Opinion on Decision at pp. 5-6.)
QME Dr. Murphy's medical reporting establishing a cumulative injury from repetitive activities for both employers.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ found applicant sustained a single cumulative injury spanning her employment with both Seenager and Pacifica. (Finding of Fact No. 1.) In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that QME Dr. Murphy found that applicant sustained a cumulative injury as a result of repetitive standing, walking, climbing, kneeling, squatting and lifting for both employers. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 5-6.) The Report further notes applicant's testimony that her work activities for Pacifica were "not significantly more or different than the ones for Seenager...she lifted people, not packages, the weights were equivalent; and 90% of her work required that she be on her feet." (Report, at p. 4.) Based on applicant's testimony, the description of her job duties and physical requirements of both positions, as well as the QME's causation analysis, the WCJ determined there to be but one cumulative injury spanning both employments. (Finding of Fact No. 1; Opinion on Decision at pp. 5-6.)
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.