What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant did not demonstrate prejudice from applicant's 15-year delay in filing claim.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without proof of prejudice, the laches defense fails, allowing the claim to proceed.
From the decision · page 4It can certainly be presumed that defendant was prejudiced by applicant waiting 15
years from the claimed date of injury to file a claim for workers' compensation
benefits. Applicant could not recall the names of coworkers who he believed
witnessed the injury, nor could he recall the names of doctors or facilities from
which he claimed to have he sought medical treatment. However, defendant
presented no evidence as to how it was prejudiced by the delay in filing a claim.
Instead, they are relying on the undersigned to infer prejudice. "Prejudice is not
presumed, it must be affirmatively demonstrated." (Ragan v. City of Hawthorne
(1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1361, 1367.) As defendant did not affirmatively
demonstrate it was prejudiced by the applicant's failure to timely file a claim, I find
that defendant has not meet its burden of proof that this claim is barred by the
doctrine of laches.
Payroll records showed applicant was paid for hours including February 12, 2007.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This evidence disproved defendant's claim that applicant was not working on the injury date.
From the decision · page 4The Fed Ex payroll records show that the applicant was paid for 25.3 hours of work
for the pay period ending February 17, 2007. (Joint Exhibit 101, page 2.) The actual
days worked in that pay period were not broken down. Applicant was written up of
a February 12, 2007 incident that was determined to be an unsafe practice. (Exhibit
1.) No evidence was presented that the applicant did not work at Fed Ex on February
12, 2007. I therefore find that the defendant has not shown that the applicant did
not work on the claimed date of injury.
Defendant failed to prove applicant was terminated before claim filing and did not provide evidence of termination date.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without proof of termination, the post-termination defense cannot bar the claim; further record development is needed.
From the decision · page 7Defendant did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, as required, that "the
claim for compensation was filed after a notice of termination or layoff, including voluntary layoff,
and that the claim is for an injury occurring prior to the time of notice of termination or layoff."
(Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(10), 3202.5, 5705.) Thus, there is no adequate evidence to support the
finding that applicant was terminated, and no adequate evidence that applicant's claim is barred
by the post-termination defense.
Once the defendant has made the initial showing necessary to a post-termination defense,
the burden shifts to applicant to establish one of the available exceptions listed in section 3600,
subdivisions (a)(10)(A) through (D).
Here, although defendant failed to make the required initial showing, applicant has
demonstrated that an exception to the compensation bar, in section 3600, subdivision (a)(10)(A),
Applicant testified he was medically terminated about a month after the injury and was not provided a claim form.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This testimony supports tolling the statute of limitations due to defendant's failure to notify and provide a claim form.
From the decision · page 9The evidence suggests, however, that the statute of limitations should have been tolled,
based on defendant's failure to timely provide a claim form to applicant, as required. (Martin,
supra, 39 Cal. 3d at 60; Lab. Code § 5401, 5402(a).) Applicant testified that he was not provided
with a claim form. (MOH 5/14/24, at p. 5.) Applicant provided written evidence and testimony
demonstrating that defendant was aware of the incident which caused his injury, and of the injury
itself. First, applicant was reprimanded, in writing, for this incident. (Applicant's Exh. 1.)
Moreover, as discussed above, applicant testified that he was "medically terminated" within "a
month or so" of his 2007 injury, which belies defendant's assertions that it was unaware of
applicant's injury until the 2023 claim was filed. (MOH 5/14/24, at p. 5.) Applicant also testified
that after he stopped working for FedEx, "the next month he was called in to sign medical
termination paperwork. He does not recall the date. He knows he went in for treatment, but does
not recall where. He was directed by a letter from FedEx to go to a certain physician, but he doesn't
have that letter." (MOH 5/14/24, at p. 6.)