What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied.
Petition for reconsideration following injury AOE/COE trial on threshold issues of injury, employment, and statute of limitations.
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 the statute of limitations defense valid as to landlord Zee Shore due to lack of knowledge but invalid as to tenant S & P due to contemporaneous knowledge and breach of duty to notify applicant of rights, which the panel upheld.
From the decision · page 2As to the statute of limitations claims raised by both landlord Zee Shore and tenant/petitioner S & P, I determined that the statute of limitations defense was valid as to landlord Zee Shore due to their apparent lack of knowledge of the injury before an application was filed against them. By contrast, I found the same statute of limitations defense unmeritorious as to tenant S & P based on S & P's contemporaneous knowledge the accident and a consequent breach of S & P's "Reynolds" duty to apprise the applicant of his workers compensation rights against S & P. (Reynolds v. WCAB, 39 CCC 768.)