ADJ2649256 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied; May 11, 2023 Findings of Fact upheld.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) seeking review of May 11, 2023 Findings of Fact denying time bar to applicant's SIBTF claim.

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 prevailed

Applicant did not know and could not reasonably have known of SIBTF liability within five years of injury date; applicant filed claim within reasonable time after learning of probable liability; petition for reconsideration denying time bar was properly denied.

From the decision · page 64 While UEBTF makes this argument for policy reasons, the undersigned finds the analysis to be similar. 5 The period within which proceedings may be commenced for the collection of the benefits provided by Article 2 (commencing with Section 4600) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 4650), or both, of Chapter 2 of Part 2 is one year from any of the following: (a)The date of injury. (b)The expiration of any period covered by payment under Article 3 (commencing with Section 4650) of Chapter 2 of Part 2. (c)The last date on which any benefits provided for in Article 2 (commencing with Section 4600) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 were furnished.

The rules the panel named

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

Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmens' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Talcott) (1970) 2 Cal.3d 56

Reasonable time exception test for SIBTF claim timeliness from Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmens' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Talcott) (1970) 2 Cal.3d 56

Applicant did not know and could not reasonably have known of SIBTF liability within five years; claim filed within reasonable time after learning probable liability.

From the decision · page 64 While UEBTF makes this argument for policy reasons, the undersigned finds the analysis to be similar. 5 The period within which proceedings may be commenced for the collection of the benefits provided by Article 2 (commencing with Section 4600) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 4650), or both, of Chapter 2 of Part 2 is one year from any of the following: (a)The date of injury. (b)The expiration of any period covered by payment under Article 3 (commencing with Section 4650) of Chapter 2 of Part 2. (c)The last date on which any benefits provided for in Article 2 (commencing with Section 4600) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 were furnished.

Labor Code section 4751

Labor Code section 4751 regarding apportionment and permanent disability thresholds for subsequent injuries

Used to guide analysis of probable liability and apportionment in SIBTF claim.

From the decision · page 7Therefore, this court was left to decide if Applicant filed his SIBTF claim within a reasonable time after he learned from the board's findings on the issue of permanent disability that the Fund may have probable liability. It is undisputed that there is a finding from the board on the issue of permanent disability. This trial court was thus left to analyze whether Applicant filed within a `reasonable time' after Applicant learned that the Fund had `probable liability'. There is a dearth of case law expounding on the issue of probable liability as it comes this issue. Therefore, the undersigned looked to Labor Code section 4751 and its interpreting cases for guidance. Labor Code section 4751 states:

ADJ2649256 · August 4, 2023

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

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

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page