What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The applicant and Barbara Clark's testimony was more credible than the defense witnesses' testimony, which contained contradictions and inconsistencies.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This credibility finding supported the conclusion that the applicant timely reported the injury and that the employer had notice, precluding the statute of limitations defense.
From the decision · page 3The applicant's and defendant's versions of whether or not the December 16, 2019 automobile
accident was reported were directly contrary and incompatible. I found the applicant and Barbara
Clark's testimony to be more credible than the defendant's witnesses. Therefore, I determined that
the applicant had timely reported the December 16, 2019 injury, that defendant's failure to provide
notices relating to potential workers' compensation benefits precluded them from asserting a
statute of limitations defense, and as a result found that the applicant sustained an injury arising
out of and in the course of employment on December 16, 2019 in ADJ14742380.
The employer failed to provide notices relating to potential workers' compensation benefits.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure precluded the employer from asserting a statute of limitations defense.
From the decision · page 6Where an employee is not provided notices relating to potential workers' compensation benefits,
then the employer is precluded from asserting a statute of limitations defense. (Reynolds v.
Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726, 730 [117 Cal.Rptr. 79, 527 P.2d 631].) If
the employer breaches its duty to provide notices, the employer bears the burden of showing that
the employee had actual knowledge of her workers' compensation rights to prevent to tolling of
The applicant was ignorant of her workers' compensation rights and relied on the employer's statements that the accident was not a workers' compensation matter.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This ignorance and reliance estopped the employer from asserting the statute of limitations defense.
From the decision · page 7The circumstances in the case at issue are very different from those of the applicant in Hurwitz.
There was no evidence presented that the applicant was pursuing a third-party claim related to the
automobile accident or may have strategically delayed filing an application for the December 16,
2019 injury. Indeed the applicant testified that she asked if the accident may have been a workers'
compensation matter, but she was told by Verlinda Montoya that the automobile accident was not
covered by workers' compensation. (Testimony of the applicant, Summary of Evidence for the
Trial on March 10, 2022, page 8, lines 33-37.) The applicant thereafter self-procured treatment
and did not further discuss her injuries with her employer because she had been told that the
accident was not a workers' compensation matter. (Id. at page 8, line 40 page 9, line 10.) This
ignorance of the true facts and reliance on the words or conduct of the adverse party to the
applicant's detriment means the defendant is equitably estopped from asserting the statute of
limitations defense.