ADJ11289453 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied, affirming that the claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact that applicant's claim was not 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 prevailedanus

The WCJ found that applicant did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the industrial causation of her cancer until the medical expert Dr. Wiseman found it in 2019, which was after the filing of the Application for Adjudication in 2018, thus the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact of February 4, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. In this matter, applicant claims that, while employed as a police officer during a cumulative period ending on August 13, 2012, she sustained industrial injury in the form of cancer, specifically squamous cell carcinoma of the anus.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

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

California Labor Code §5405

The statute of limitations under California Labor Code §5405 bars claims not filed within one year of knowledge of injury's industrial relationship.

The WCJ applied this statute to determine timeliness of the claim based on knowledge of industrial causation.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact of February 4, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. In this matter, applicant claims that, while employed as a police officer during a cumulative period ending on August 13, 2012, she sustained industrial injury in the form of cancer, specifically squamous cell carcinoma of the anus.

California Labor Code §5412

Date of injury for cumulative trauma claims is the concurrence of compensable disability and knowledge of industrial relationship under California Labor Code §5412.

The WCJ applied this statute to analyze the date of injury and knowledge for the cumulative trauma claim.

From the decision · page 3Per California Labor Code § 5412, the "date of injury" for purposes of determining the commencement of the limitations period in a cumulative injury case is the concurrence of compensable disability and the date of the employee's knowledge of the injury's industrial relationship. Determination of a section 5412 "date of injury" is therefore a two-part analysis: 1) when did the employee first suffer a compensable disability from a cumulative injury and; 2) when did the employee know or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that the compensable disability was caused by her employment. (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rodarte) (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th. 998.) Whether an employee knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that the disability was caused by employment is a question of fact, and the employer bears the burden of proof. (Nielsen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 50 Cal.Comp.Cases 104; County of Riverside v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sylves) (2017) 82 Cal.Comp.Cases 301, 305; City of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Travers) (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 148 (writ denied).)

ADJ11289453 · April 27, 2021

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