What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed 7/22/2022 from Findings of Fact dated 7/1/2022, denied by WCAB panel decision dated 9/16/2022
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.
Applicant failed to file the claim within the statutory time period and did not provide evidence to overcome the statute of limitations bar.
From the decision · page 3Applicant, while employed during the period 6/24/2010 to 6/24/2011 as a Production Control Expeditor for The Boeing Company, claims to have sustained industrial injuries to her neck, back, hernia, ears, shoulders, left hip and nervous system/stress (psyche) arising out of and in the course of her employment.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant did not file the Application for Adjudication of Claim until 1/13/2020, over 8 years after the injury period ended.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This delay caused the claim to be barred by the statute of limitations under Labor Code Section 5405.
From the decision · page 5why she did not file the Application for Adjudication of Claim for the date of injury at issue until 1/13/2020, over 8 years later.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Applicant had problems sending medical reports to the Panel QME Dr. Anthony Fenison and objected to a letter directed to Dr. Fenison by Defendant.
From the decision · page 5Instead, the Applicant discusses numerous topics some irrelevant to the issues submitted at trial. She discusses Defendant's unsuccessful attempt to have her claim dismissed, the problems Applicant encountered with sending medical reports to the Panel QME Dr. Anthony Fenison, her objection to the letter Defendant directed to Dr. Fenison and her attempt to get another panel with the assistance of the I&A officer, Keith Markman.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code Section 5405
Applied to bar the claim due to missed filing timeline.
From the decision · page 6Unfortunately, as Labor Code Section 5405 does apply to the instant case and the timeline was missed, the only conclusion that can be drawn based on the entire record presented is that the Applicant's claim for benefits arising from the 6/4/2010 to 6/24/2011 is barred[.]
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's failure to file the claim within the statutory period and lack of medical reports referencing the injury period 6/24/2010 to 6/24/2011
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.