ADJ17394446 · July 15, 2024

The WCJ erred in finding the claim barred by the statute of limitations because the employer failed to provide the required DWC-1 form, which tolled the statute of limitations.

From the decision · page 4Here, defendant had sufficient notice of injury or claim of injury to give rise to a duty to provide applicant with a DWC-1 claim form. It's failure to do so tolled the statute of limitations. We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and issue a new decision reflecting that applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Applicant fell at employer's parking lot on February 12, 2018, sustaining a back injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Established date of injury triggering statute of limitations.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of April 29, 2024, wherein it was found that applicant's claim is barred by the statute of limitations. In this matter, applicant claims that while employed on February 12, 2018 as a laundry production person, applicant sustained industrial injury to the back.

Applicant's lead supervisor witnessed the fall and reported the injury and surgery to management by September 2018.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Provided employer notice of injury or claim triggering duty to provide DWC-1 form and toll statute of limitations.

Employer failed to provide DWC-1 form after notice of injury or claim.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Failure tolled statute of limitations, allowing claim to proceed.

From the decision · page 4Here, defendant had sufficient notice of injury or claim of injury to give rise to a duty to provide applicant with a DWC-1 claim form. It's failure to do so tolled the statute of limitations. We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and issue a new decision reflecting that applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Labor Code section 5405

Burden of proof on defendant to show statute of limitations start date under Labor Code section 5405.

Defendant failed to show when statute began to run as applicant was not provided disability indemnity or medical treatment.

From the decision · page 2The running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving it is on the party opposing the claim. (Lab. Code, § 5409; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Martin) (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57, 67, fn. 8 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411].) The burden is on defendant to show when the statute of limitations began to run, "starting from any and all three points designated [in Labor Code section 5405]." (Colonial Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Nickles) (1945) 27 Cal.2d 437, 441 [10 Cal.Comp.Cases 321].) The three points designated in section 5405 are date of injury (Lab. Code, § 5405, subd. (a)); the last payment of disability indemnity (Lab. Code, § 5405, subd. (b)); and the last date on which medical treatment benefits

Labor Code section 5401

Employer's duty to notify injured employee of potential benefits under Labor Code section 5401(a).

Failure to provide DWC-1 form tolled statute of limitations as applicant was prejudiced by breach.

From the decision · page 3"[A]s a general rule, where a claimant asserts exemptions, exceptions, or other matters which will avoid the statute of limitations, the burden is on the claimant to produce evidence sufficient to prove such avoidance." (Permanente Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Williams) (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1184 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 491].) One such exemption or exception is that the statute is tolled by an employer's failure to notify an injured employee of a potential right to benefits, as required by Labor Code section 5401(a). (Martin, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 60.) Pursuant to Labor Code section 5401, within one day of receiving notice of the applicant's injury, defendant was required to send the applicant a DWC-1 form which apprises the injured worker of his or her potential eligibility for workers' compensation benefits under California law. (Labor Code, § 5401, subd. (a).) The Supreme Court has held that "the remedy for breach of an employer's duty to notify is a tolling of the statute of limitations if the employee, without that tolling, is prejudiced by the breach." (Martin, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 64.)

Knowledge imputed to employer's managing agent or person in authority including foreman (production lead).

Applicant's lead supervisor's knowledge imputed to employer triggering duty to provide claim form.

Testimony of Katty Artiaga, the applicant's lead supervisor, who witnessed the fall and reported the injury and surgery to management, supporting tolling of the statute of limitations.