What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5 was January 6, 2006 to January 6, 2007, during which applicant was employed solely by Sansum Santa Barbara Medical.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This established the correct liable employer, leading to amendment of the award to reflect Zurich as the liable party.
From the decision · page 3Cottage Health avers the PWCJ inadvertently listed it as the employer and thus the liable
party rather than Sansum San Barbara Medical, insured by Zurich American Insurance Company.
The PWCJ determined the period of liability under section 5500.5 to be January 6, 2006 to
January 6, 2007. (Finding of Fact No. 3.) During this interval, applicant was employed solely by
Sansum Santa Barbara Medical. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, dated June 19,
2024, at p. 6:18.) We therefore concur with the PWCJ's recommendation as set forth in the Report
that we amend the Award for evident clerical error. Consequently, we will grant Cottage Health's
petition and amend the F&A to reflect that Sansum Santa Barbara Medical, insured by Zurich
American Insurance Company is liable for the claimed injury.
Applicant sustained a single cumulative injury from March 19, 2001 to January 3, 2011, as previously decided and not timely challenged.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This upheld the finding of one continuous trauma injury, rejecting Zurich's contention of multiple injuries.
From the decision · page 3For its part, Zurich contends the evidentiary record supports the existence of two or more
separate injuries. However, the issue of the nature and number of injuries was specifically raised
by the parties and decided in our January 6, 2025 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration
(ODAR). Therein, we discussed the relevant legal and evidentiary standards for determining the
nature and number of injuries sustained by applicant and agreed with the PWCJ that applicant
sustained a single cumulative injury from March 19, 2001 to January 3, 2011. (ODAR, at pp. 5-
8.)
Zurich did not timely raise the statute of limitations defense, which was waived; applicant continued to receive authorized medical treatment and indemnity through 2013.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This led to denial of Zurich's petition based on the statute of limitations defense.
From the decision · page 4To the extent that Zurich also now raises the running of the statute of limitations of section
5405 for the first time, we agree with the PWCJ's observation that the affirmative defense is not
timely raised. (Lab. Code, § 5409 ["The running of the period of limitations prescribed by this
chapter is an affirmative defense and operates to bar the remedy and not to extinguish the right of
the employee. Such defense may be waived. Failure to present such defense prior to the submission
of the cause for decision is a sufficient waiver."]; see also Memorial Hospital Assoc. v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (Caldwell) (1995) 60 Cal.Comp.Cases 779 (writ denied) [statute of limitations
waived by failing to raise the defense at mandatory settlement conference]; Griffith v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1260, 1265 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 145, 148]) [issue not
raised at trial level is waived].) Even were this not the case, we observe that applicant continued
to receive authorized medical treatment and indemnity through 2013 when she filed the instant
applications. (See, e.g., Ex. 11, report of AME Chester Hasday, M.D., dated November 11, 2019,
at pp. 4, 57.) As such, we find Zurich's arguments regarding the applicability of the statute of
limitations to be unpersuasive. (See Lab. Code, § 5405(b)-(c).)