ADJ19531062 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is denied.

Defendant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration challenging the WCJ's Findings of Fact, Award, and Opinion on Decision issued March 3, 2026, which was denied by the WCAB panel on June 8, 2026.

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 prevailedright shoulder

Defendant failed to comply with the required notice language under AD Rule 9812(e)(3)(A)(2), resulting in tolling of the statute of limitations and estoppel from raising the defense.

From the decision · page 6as defendant failed to check off the box next to the language, we agree with the WCJ that defendant failed to meet its burden of proof as to the application of the statute of limitations. By checking off the boxes of some language but not others, applicant was not properly and clearly made aware of how to obtain an evaluation by a qualified medical evaluator (QME) as required by AD Rule 9812 and as a result, the statute of limitations was tolled.

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 5705

Burden of proof rests on party asserting affirmative defense (Labor Code section 5705).

Defendant, asserting statute of limitations defense, has burden of proof.

From the decision · page 5It is well established that the burden of proof rests upon the party holding the affirmative

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 9812(e)(3)(A)(2)

Notice requirements under Administrative Director Rule 9812(e)(3)(A)(2) for permanent disability benefits denial notices.

Defendant failed to comply with required notice language, leading to tolling of statute of limitations.

From the decision · page 4We observe that current AD Rule 9812 (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 9812) was also in effect in 2019 when defendant served applicant, who was then unrepresented, with the Notice Regarding Permanent Disability Benefits Denial (Notice) on September 12, 2019. AD Rule 9812, subdivision (e)(3), requires that a defendant claiming that no permanent disability exists must provide applicant with the following notice:

Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726

Employers' failure to provide statutorily required notice estops them from raising statute of limitations defense (Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726).

Defendant estopped from raising statute of limitations defense due to failure to provide proper notice.

From the decision · page 6"Limitations provisions in the [workers'] compensation law must be liberally construed in favor of the employee unless otherwise compelled by the language of the statute, and such enactments should not be interpreted in a manner which will result in a loss of compensation." (Blanchard v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 590, 595 [40 Cal. Comp. Cases 784] (internal citations omitted).) It is well settled that where the employer has a statutory or regulatory duty to provide notice to the injured worker of a right and fails to do so, the employer is estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a bar to the claim. (Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726.)

ADJ19531062 · June 8, 2026

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.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page