What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied.
Petition for reconsideration following injury AOE/COE trial on threshold issues of injury, employment, and statute of limitations.
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.
The WCJ found the statute of limitations defense valid as to landlord Zee Shore due to lack of knowledge but invalid as to tenant S & P due to contemporaneous knowledge and breach of duty to notify applicant of rights, which the panel upheld.
From the decision · page 2As to the statute of limitations claims raised by both landlord Zee Shore and tenant/petitioner S & P, I determined that the statute of limitations defense was valid as to landlord Zee Shore due to their apparent lack of knowledge of the injury before an application was filed against them. By contrast, I found the same statute of limitations defense unmeritorious as to tenant S & P based on S & P's contemporaneous knowledge the accident and a consequent breach of S & P's "Reynolds" duty to apprise the applicant of his workers compensation rights against S & P. (Reynolds v. WCAB, 39 CCC 768.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Tenant S & P had contemporaneous knowledge of the injury on the day it occurred, as testified by Grover Perkins III and supported by inferences from phone calls made that day.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This knowledge tolled the statute of limitations under the Reynolds doctrine, making the defense invalid as to S & P.
From the decision · page 2As to the statute of limitations claims raised by both landlord Zee Shore and tenant/petitioner S & P, I determined that the statute of limitations defense was valid as to landlord Zee Shore due to their apparent lack of knowledge of the injury before an application was filed against them. By contrast, I found the same statute of limitations defense unmeritorious as to tenant S & P based on S & P's contemporaneous knowledge the accident and a consequent breach of S & P's "Reynolds" duty to apprise the applicant of his workers compensation rights against S & P. (Reynolds v. WCAB, 39 CCC 768.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Reynolds v. WCAB, 39 CCC 768
Labor Code section 5405 tolling under Reynolds doctrine
The panel applied the Reynolds tolling doctrine to find that tenant S & P had contemporaneous knowledge of the injury, tolling the statute of limitations.
From the decision · page 2As to the statute of limitations claims raised by both landlord Zee Shore and tenant/petitioner S & P, I determined that the statute of limitations defense was valid as to landlord Zee Shore due to their apparent lack of knowledge of the injury before an application was filed against them. By contrast, I found the same statute of limitations defense unmeritorious as to tenant S & P based on S & P's contemporaneous knowledge the accident and a consequent breach of S & P's "Reynolds" duty to apprise the applicant of his workers compensation rights against S & P. (Reynolds v. WCAB, 39 CCC 768.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Credibility determinations of witnesses, especially Grover Perkins III, were given great weight by the WCJ and upheld by the panel.
From the decision · page 12IV RECOMMENDATION The undersigned WCJ recommends that defendant S & P Soho Arts LLC's reconsideration petition be denied. (Report, emphasis in original.) We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.