ADJ17394446 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ's decision rescinded; new decision issued that claim is not barred by statute of limitations.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order of April 29, 2024, which found the claim barred by the statute of limitations.

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 limitationsApplicant prevailedback

The WCJ erred in finding the claim barred by the statute of limitations because the employer failed to provide the required DWC-1 form, which tolled the statute of limitations.

From the decision · page 4Here, defendant had sufficient notice of injury or claim of injury to give rise to a duty to provide applicant with a DWC-1 claim form. It's failure to do so tolled the statute of limitations. We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ's decision, and issue a new decision reflecting that applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code section 5405

Burden of proof on defendant to show statute of limitations start date under Labor Code section 5405.

Defendant failed to show when statute began to run as applicant was not provided disability indemnity or medical treatment.

From the decision · page 2The running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving it is on the party opposing the claim. (Lab. Code, § 5409; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Martin) (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57, 67, fn. 8 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411].) The burden is on defendant to show when the statute of limitations began to run, "starting from any and all three points designated [in Labor Code section 5405]." (Colonial Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Nickles) (1945) 27 Cal.2d 437, 441 [10 Cal.Comp.Cases 321].) The three points designated in section 5405 are date of injury (Lab. Code, § 5405, subd. (a)); the last payment of disability indemnity (Lab. Code, § 5405, subd. (b)); and the last date on which medical treatment benefits

Labor Code section 5401

Employer's duty to notify injured employee of potential benefits under Labor Code section 5401(a).

Failure to provide DWC-1 form tolled statute of limitations as applicant was prejudiced by breach.

From the decision · page 3"[A]s a general rule, where a claimant asserts exemptions, exceptions, or other matters which will avoid the statute of limitations, the burden is on the claimant to produce evidence sufficient to prove such avoidance." (Permanente Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Williams) (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1184 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 491].) One such exemption or exception is that the statute is tolled by an employer's failure to notify an injured employee of a potential right to benefits, as required by Labor Code section 5401(a). (Martin, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 60.) Pursuant to Labor Code section 5401, within one day of receiving notice of the applicant's injury, defendant was required to send the applicant a DWC-1 form which apprises the injured worker of his or her potential eligibility for workers' compensation benefits under California law. (Labor Code, § 5401, subd. (a).) The Supreme Court has held that "the remedy for breach of an employer's duty to notify is a tolling of the statute of limitations if the employee, without that tolling, is prejudiced by the breach." (Martin, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 64.)

Knowledge imputed to employer's managing agent or person in authority including foreman (production lead).

Applicant's lead supervisor's knowledge imputed to employer triggering duty to provide claim form.

ADJ17394446 · July 15, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page