ADJ19392643 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred pending further review

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review of merits

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.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedlow back · neck · left shoulder · left hand · left wrist

The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in limiting the date of injury to August 15, 2019, and in the application of the post-termination bar under section 3600(a)(10), warranting reconsideration and further review.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Finding of Fact issued on October 23, 2025 by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found that applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his low back, neck, left shoulder, left hand, and left wrist with additional parts of body deferred and jurisdiction reserved with the WCAB; the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is August 15, 2019; and compensation for applicant's injury is not barred by section 3600(a)(10).

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code

Labor Code section 5412

Defines the date of injury for cumulative injury cases as the date the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was caused by employment.

From the decision · page 4Code, § 3600(a)(10).) The initial burden in asserting a post-termination bar to compensation, an affirmative defense, rests with the defendant, who must establish 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, § 5705.) Defendant must meet this burden by preponderance of the evidence, and this requires "evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and the greater probability of truth." (Lab. Code, § 3202.5) In this case, applicant claims a cumulative injury. Section 5412 sets the date of injury for cumulative injury and occupational disease cases, as "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.)

Labor Code

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)

Sets conditions under which compensation is barred post-termination unless certain criteria are met.

From the decision · page 4III. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: Section 3600(a)(10) states, that: Except for psychiatric injuries governed by subdivision (e) of Section 3208.3, where the claim for compensation is filed after notice of termination or layoff, including voluntary layoff, and the claim is for an injury occurring prior to the time of notice of termination or layoff, no compensation shall be paid unless the employee demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the following conditions apply: (A) The employer has notice of the injury, as provided under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 5400), prior to the notice of termination or layoff. (B) The employee's medical records, existing prior to the notice of termination or layoff, contain evidence of the injury. (C) The date of injury, as specified in Section 5411, is subsequent to the date of the notice of termination or layoff, but prior to the effective date of the termination or layoff. (D) The date of injury, as specified in Section 5412, is subsequent to the date of the notice of termination or layoff. (Lab.

ADJ19392643 · January 30, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

The rules the panel named

About this page