ADJ1848184 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration is denied.

Petition for Reconsideration of WCJ's denial of relief from stipulated withdrawal of first Petition to Reopen, denial of second Petition to Reopen, denial of relief from dismissal of case ADJ1848184, and denial of Labor Code §132a petition.

Read the official decision →

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.

Discrimination under Labor Code §132aDefendant prevailed

No evidence was provided to support estoppel or tolling; one-year statute of limitation enforced.

From the decision · page 17This argument is felt to be generally accurate although it would have been useful if Defendant had applied it to particular issues. For example, Petitioner's petition for increased benefits because his employment with Defendant allegedly ended as a result of discrimination prohibited by Lab.C. § 132a sought "an exemption to toll the statute of limitations" on the basis that "the former employer's discriminatory actions violated the applicant's guarantee of procedural due process" by "Fraudulent concealment and or manipulation of the truthfulness of the accord for resignation." Petition for Discrimination Benefits Pursuant to Labor Code Section 132a. 1/08/2022. At Trial, the evidence allegedly available to support the requested estoppel was not forthcoming. The reportedly handwritten original resignation and allegedly-modified typewritten resignation were not offered in evidence. Evidence supporting a specific intent to conceal or manipulate particular things by particular persons at particular times was not provided. Statements, deposition testimony, or Trial testimony from the alleged wrong-doers are not in the record. Therefore, the requested "exemption" was not granted and the one-year Statute of Limitation on Petitioner's Lab.C. § 132a petition was enforced.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Petition for reconsideration and discrimination claims were filed beyond statutory deadlines.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Board lacked jurisdiction to address untimely claims.

From the decision · page 1Further, we note that the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to address the issues brought up by applicant in his Petition upon the ground that the original injury has caused new and further disability as the Petition was filed well beyond five years after the date of the injury. (Lab. Code, § 5410.) Additionally, proceedings for increased compensation based on discrimination against an injured worker, or for reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits, are to be instituted by filing an appropriate petition with the appeals board within one year from the discriminatory act or date of termination of the employee. (Lab. Code, § 132a.) As applicant did not file his Petition within the statutory deadlines, the Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction to address these issues.

No timely petition for reconsideration was filed after stipulated dismissal; service at last known address is valid.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Order became final and not subject to relief.

From the decision · page 13In this case, as noted above, timely petitions for reconsideration of the Stipulation & Order of February 2, 2012 in ADJ 4372957 and the Dismissals of ADJ 1848184 on November 22, 2004 and ADJ 904905 on March 27, 2007 were not filed.

No evidence was provided to support estoppel or tolling for discrimination claim.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Statute of limitations enforced; claim denied.

From the decision · page 17This argument is felt to be generally accurate although it would have been useful if Defendant had applied it to particular issues. For example, Petitioner's petition for increased benefits because his employment with Defendant allegedly ended as a result of discrimination prohibited by Lab.C. § 132a sought "an exemption to toll the statute of limitations" on the basis that "the former employer's discriminatory actions violated the applicant's guarantee of procedural due process" by "Fraudulent concealment and or manipulation of the truthfulness of the accord for resignation." Petition for Discrimination Benefits Pursuant to Labor Code Section 132a. 1/08/2022. At Trial, the evidence allegedly available to support the requested estoppel was not forthcoming. The reportedly handwritten original resignation and allegedly-modified typewritten resignation were not offered in evidence. Evidence supporting a specific intent to conceal or manipulate particular things by particular persons at particular times was not provided. Statements, deposition testimony, or Trial testimony from the alleged wrong-doers are not in the record. Therefore, the requested "exemption" was not granted and the one-year Statute of Limitation on Petitioner's Lab.C. § 132a petition was enforced.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Lab. Code § 5410, Lab. Code § 132a

Petition for new and further disability must be filed within five years of date of injury (Lab. Code § 5410); discrimination claims must be filed within one year of discriminatory act or termination (Lab. Code § 132a).

Petition and discrimination claims were untimely, depriving Board of jurisdiction.

From the decision · page 1Further, we note that the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to address the issues brought up by applicant in his Petition upon the ground that the original injury has caused new and further disability as the Petition was filed well beyond five years after the date of the injury. (Lab. Code, § 5410.) Additionally, proceedings for increased compensation based on discrimination against an injured worker, or for reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits, are to be instituted by filing an appropriate petition with the appeals board within one year from the discriminatory act or date of termination of the employee. (Lab. Code, § 132a.) As applicant did not file his Petition within the statutory deadlines, the Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction to address these issues.

8 CCR §10330

Orders, findings, decisions and awards of WCJ are those of the WCAB unless reconsideration is granted.

No timely petition for reconsideration was filed after stipulated dismissal; order became final.

From the decision · page 12In any case that has been regularly assigned to a workers' compensation judge, the workers' compensation judge shall have full power, jurisdiction and authority to hear and determine all issues of fact and law presented and issue any interim, interlocutory and final orders, findings decisions or awards as may be necessary to the full adjudication of the case, including the fixing of the amount of the bond required in Labor Code section 3715. Orders, findings, decisions and awards issued by a workers' compensation judge shall be the orders, findings, decisions and awards of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board unless reconsideration is granted. 8 CCR § 10330 (WCAB Rule 10330).

8 CCR 10205.5

Service at last known address is valid; party responsible for maintaining current address.

Petitioner not entitled to complain about service to address of record.

From the decision · page 14The third problem with this argument is that service at the last known address of record, even if that address is outdated, is good service. It is the responsibility of every party or lien claimant with an interest in the case to maintain a current address and promptly file changes of address. 8 CCR 10205.5 (AD Rule 10205.5). Put another way, Petitioner is not entitled to complain that the Stipulation & Order of February 2, 2012 was sent to him at an address he provided.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Documentary evidencefavours Defendant prevailed

Service at last known address is valid even if outdated; Petitioner responsible for maintaining current address.

From the decision · page 14The third problem with this argument is that service at the last known address of record, even if that address is outdated, is good service. It is the responsibility of every party or lien claimant with an interest in the case to maintain a current address and promptly file changes of address. 8 CCR 10205.5 (AD Rule 10205.5). Put another way, Petitioner is not entitled to complain that the Stipulation & Order of February 2, 2012 was sent to him at an address he provided.

Documentary evidencefavours Defendant prevailed

No evidence provided to support estoppel or tolling for discrimination claim; no resignation documents or testimony from alleged wrongdoers offered.

From the decision · page 17This argument is felt to be generally accurate although it would have been useful if Defendant had applied it to particular issues. For example, Petitioner's petition for increased benefits because his employment with Defendant allegedly ended as a result of discrimination prohibited by Lab.C. § 132a sought "an exemption to toll the statute of limitations" on the basis that "the former employer's discriminatory actions violated the applicant's guarantee of procedural due process" by "Fraudulent concealment and or manipulation of the truthfulness of the accord for resignation." Petition for Discrimination Benefits Pursuant to Labor Code Section 132a. 1/08/2022. At Trial, the evidence allegedly available to support the requested estoppel was not forthcoming. The reportedly handwritten original resignation and allegedly-modified typewritten resignation were not offered in evidence. Evidence supporting a specific intent to conceal or manipulate particular things by particular persons at particular times was not provided. Statements, deposition testimony, or Trial testimony from the alleged wrong-doers are not in the record. Therefore, the requested "exemption" was not granted and the one-year Statute of Limitation on Petitioner's Lab.C. § 132a petition was enforced.

ADJ1848184 · August 1, 2023

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page