What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's deposition on May 20, 2015, provided defendant with knowledge of the specific injury claim.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact was central to the WCJ's conclusion that the statute of limitations was tolled because defendant had knowledge but failed to notify applicant of his rights.
From the decision · page 3In his Opinion on Decision, the WCJ cites Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
(1974) 12 Cal.3d 726 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 768] and concludes that the one-year Statute of
Limitations was tolled because, due to applicant's deposition of May 20, 2015 and/or Dr. Bhatia's
Dr. Bhatia's May 16, 2019 report indicated applicant sustained a specific injury in March 2012.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This report was relied upon to support tolling of the statute of limitations due to defendant's knowledge of the injury and failure to notify applicant.
From the decision · page 5Finally, we note the WCJ also relied upon PQME Bhatia's May 16, 2019 report, which
found that applicant sustained a specific injury, to conclude that the one-year Statute of Limitations
was tolled at that time because the report triggered defendant's duty to advise applicant of his right
to file a specific injury claim. As with applicant's deposition in which he testified that he sustained
a specific injury around March 2012, it would appear from Dr. Bhatia's report that both applicant
and defendant may have had equal knowledge of his workers' compensation rights. Here again,
the WCJ must revisit and determine whether defendant nevertheless had a duty to notify applicant
of his right to file a specific injury claim.
Applicant's deposition testimony conflicted on reasons for not reporting injury, including fear of losing work and lack of employer notification.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The WCJ must consider this conflicting testimony in determining tolling of the statute of limitations.
From the decision · page 5Concerning the foregoing issues, we note it is apparent from applicant's deposition that he
did have actual notice that he suffered a specific work injury, but he never informed AGR
Contracting about it. However, applicant's deposition testimony is in conflict over the reasons for
his failure to report the specific injury. Although applicant testified that his employer "never told
us there was a doctor or somebody where we could report," his testimony also includes two
references to his fear of losing work if he reported a work injury. The WCJ should consider this
conflicting testimony in addressing whether or not the one-year Statute of Limitations was tolled
after March 2012 or after May 20, 2015, and if so, when the tolling started.