What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant after prior decision on January 13, 2025, rescinding WCJ findings and returning matter for further proceedings; current decision denies the petition.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold January 13, 2025.
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 prevailedcervical spine · lumbar spine · bilateral shoulders · bilateral wrists · bilateral feet
Defendant failed to prove applicant knew or should have known of disability caused by employment before May 24, 2022, and no medical evidence showed disability before that date; applicant's suspicion alone insufficient to establish earlier date.
From the decision · page 3II. Defendant contends that the evidence establishes that applicant's section 5412 date of injury is April 21, 2016, or, alternatively, a date before June 19, 2019. Specifically, defendant argues that (1) the medical record shows that applicant had orthopedic complaints to her neck, back, and shoulders in 2016 that she believed were work- related; and (2) applicant was effectively disabled from work as a result of these orthopedic injuries as shown by an April 21, 2016 chiropractic finding that she had a limited range of motion of the spine, and a February 9, 2017 MRI finding evidencing that she had sustained disability. (Petition, pp. 5:12-7:2.) Under section 5412, "[t]he date of injury in cases of occupational diseases or cumulative injuries is that date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment." (Lab. Code, § 5412.) Whether an employee knew or should have known his disability was industrially caused is a question of fact. (City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 467, 471 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 53] (Johnson); Nielsen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.