ADJ11035143 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Affirmed the Amended Findings of Fact, Award, Orders and Opinion on Decision issued March 3, 2022, with amendments to correct case number and date of injury.

Petition for Reconsideration granted to study legal and factual issues; now Decision After Reconsideration issued affirming WCJ's Findings of Fact with amendments.

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.

Statute of limitationsDefendant prevailedheart · circulatory system

The WCJ found the date of injury under section 5412 was December 29, 2012, and that the claim for death benefits filed on August 21, 2017 was untimely because it was filed more than 240 weeks from the date of injury, consistent with section 5406(b). The Board affirmed this finding, rejecting the applicant's argument that the date of injury was May 15, 2015.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the March 3, 2022 Order Rescinding Findings of Fact, Award, Orders and Opinion on Decision and Amended Findings of Fact, Award, Orders and Opinion on Decision (F&A), wherein the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that in Case No. ADJ7555655,1 applicant while employed as a Correctional Officer during the cumulative injury period ending November 23, 2010, sustained industrial injury to his bilateral knees and in the form of coronary artery disease, hypertensive cardiovascular disease, and tinnitus. The WCJ further found in Case No. ADJ11035143 that applicant, while employed as a Correctional Officer during the period ending December 29, 2012, sustained cumulative injury in the form of coronary artery disease and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. The WCJ found in relevant part that the claim for death benefits in ADJ11035143 was untimely because it was filed more than 240 weeks from the date of injury.

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code section 5406

An application for death benefits must be filed within 240 weeks from the date of injury and within one year of the date of death under Labor Code section 5406.

The Board applied section 5406 to determine that the claim was untimely because it was filed more than 240 weeks after the date of injury.

From the decision · page 5The allowable period for the commencement of proceedings to collect death benefits (Lab. Code, § 4700 et seq.) is set forth in section 5406, which states:

Labor Code section 5412

The date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is the date when the applicant first suffers disability and has knowledge of the industrial nature of the injury.

The Board found the date of injury was December 29, 2012, based on applicant's knowledge and disability coinciding on that date.

From the decision · page 5The WCJ's Report observes that for purposes of the 240-week limitation of section 5406, the appropriate inquiry under section 5412 concerns the applicant's knowledge of the industrial nature of the injury, rather than decedent's knowledge. Following a review of the evidentiary record, the WCJ concludes that the existence of industrial disability and applicant's knowledge that such disability was work-related both coincided in 2012. Accordingly, the WCJ recommends we deny the Petition.

Labor Code section 3202

Statutes related to workers' compensation must be liberally construed in favor of the injured worker under Labor Code section 3202.

Applicant argued for liberal construction of section 5406 under section 3202, but the Board rejected this argument.

From the decision · page 2Applicant contends that the date of injury under Labor Code2 section 5412 was no earlier than May 15, 2015, thus rendering the application for death benefits timely. Applicant further contends that the WCJ's interpretation of section 5406 conflicts with the liberal construction requirement of section 3202 and that a reasonable interpretation of the statute renders applicant's claim timely.

ADJ11035143 · January 27, 2026

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