ADJ12133512 · August 22, 2023

The Board agreed with the WCJ that the Florida settlement was not actually litigated and therefore did not bar the applicant's California claims under res judicata or collateral estoppel.

From the decision · page 3In addition, we note that the California Court of Appeal has described the doctrine of res judicata as having a double aspect:

The Board agreed with the WCJ that the applicant did not receive sufficient notice of his rights to file a cumulative injury claim in California, and that the statute of limitations did not bar the claim because the applicant was not chargeable with knowledge of his rights until years after his career ended.

From the decision · page 1Defendant1 contends that applicant's claim is barred by the statute of limitations of Labor Code2 sections 5405 and 5405.3 (Petition for Reconsideration (Petition), June 23, 2023, at p. 5:20.) Defendant acknowledges the WCJ's determination that applicant's testimony was fully credible, and that applicant testified that he did not became aware of his rights to file a cumulative injury claim in California until years after the end of his career. Defendant asserts that, "[w]hile it may be true that this is when the applicant first believes he knew, it was not when he was first informed

Applicant did not receive sufficient notice of his rights to file a cumulative injury claim in California.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This lack of notice meant the statute of limitations did not bar the claim.

From the decision · page 2The court in Reynolds v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cal. Nov. 4, 1974), 12 Cal. 3d 726, 117 Cal. Rptr. 79, 527 P.2d 631, 1974 Cal. LEXIS 259 made clear the purpose of California workers' compensation notice is to protect and preserve the rights of an injured employee who may be ignorant of the procedures or, indeed, the very existence of the workmen's compensation law. Since the employer is generally in a better position to be aware of the employee's rights, it is proper that it should be charged with the responsibility of notifying the employee that there is a possibility he may have a claim for workmen's compensation benefits. Id. 12 Cal. 3d 726, 729.

Applicant's credible testimony that he was unaware of his rights until years after his career ended.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported the conclusion that applicant was not chargeable with knowledge of his rights, favoring applicant on the statute of limitations issue.

From the decision · page 1Defendant1 contends that applicant's claim is barred by the statute of limitations of Labor Code2 sections 5405 and 5405.3 (Petition for Reconsideration (Petition), June 23, 2023, at p. 5:20.) Defendant acknowledges the WCJ's determination that applicant's testimony was fully credible, and that applicant testified that he did not became aware of his rights to file a cumulative injury claim in California until years after the end of his career. Defendant asserts that, "[w]hile it may be true that this is when the applicant first believes he knew, it was not when he was first informed

The Florida settlement was not actually litigated and thus does not bar the applicant's California claims under res judicata or collateral estoppel.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supported denial of the defendant's petition based on these defenses.

From the decision · page 3In addition, we note that the California Court of Appeal has described the doctrine of res judicata as having a double aspect:

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

The one-year statute of limitations does not apply when the employer knew of a possible industrial injury but failed to advise the employee of his potential rights to workers' compensation benefits.

Applied to determine that applicant's claim was not barred by statute of limitations due to insufficient notice by employer.

From the decision · page 2The court in Reynolds v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cal. Nov. 4, 1974), 12 Cal. 3d 726, 117 Cal. Rptr. 79, 527 P.2d 631, 1974 Cal. LEXIS 259 made clear the purpose of California workers' compensation notice is to protect and preserve the rights of an injured employee who may be ignorant of the procedures or, indeed, the very existence of the workmen's compensation law. Since the employer is generally in a better position to be aware of the employee's rights, it is proper that it should be charged with the responsibility of notifying the employee that there is a possibility he may have a claim for workmen's compensation benefits. Id. 12 Cal. 3d 726, 729.

City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 467

An applicant will not be charged with knowledge that his disability is job related without medical advice to that effect unless the applicant's training, intelligence and qualifications are such that the applicant should have recognized the relationship between the known adverse factors involved in his employment and his disability.

Applied to assess applicant's knowledge and training in relation to his awareness of his disability being work related.

From the decision · page 7effect unless the nature of the disability and applicant's training, intelligence and qualifications are such that applicant should have recognized the relationship between the known adverse factors involved in his employment and his disability'" citing City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 467, 473. Id. p:10; ll: 19-23. The City of Fresno court concluded: "Under these circumstances we conclude there is substantial evidence to support the board's decision that applicant was not chargeable with knowledge that his disability was work related. Applicant did not have the training or qualifications to recognize the relationship between the known adverse factors involved in his employment and his disability. Applicant's expression of the belief, shared by most disabled employees, that his employment caused his disability does not mandate a contrary conclusion." Id. at 473.

County of Sacramento Sheriff's Dept. v. W.C.A.B. (Keillor) (2021) 86 Cal. Comp. Cases 845

Res judicata precludes parties from relitigating a cause of action finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction; collateral estoppel bars relitigation of issues necessarily decided in prior litigation.

Applied to determine that the Florida settlement did not bar applicant's claims under res judicata or collateral estoppel because it was not actually litigated.

From the decision · page 3In addition, we note that the California Court of Appeal has described the doctrine of res judicata as having a double aspect:

Applicant's credible testimony that he did not know of his rights to file a cumulative injury claim in California until years after his career ended.

From the decision · page 1Defendant1 contends that applicant's claim is barred by the statute of limitations of Labor Code2 sections 5405 and 5405.3 (Petition for Reconsideration (Petition), June 23, 2023, at p. 5:20.) Defendant acknowledges the WCJ's determination that applicant's testimony was fully credible, and that applicant testified that he did not became aware of his rights to file a cumulative injury claim in California until years after the end of his career. Defendant asserts that, "[w]hile it may be true that this is when the applicant first believes he knew, it was not when he was first informed

Insufficient notice provided by employer to applicant regarding California workers' compensation rights, especially regarding cumulative trauma claims.

From the decision · page 2The court in Reynolds v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cal. Nov. 4, 1974), 12 Cal. 3d 726, 117 Cal. Rptr. 79, 527 P.2d 631, 1974 Cal. LEXIS 259 made clear the purpose of California workers' compensation notice is to protect and preserve the rights of an injured employee who may be ignorant of the procedures or, indeed, the very existence of the workmen's compensation law. Since the employer is generally in a better position to be aware of the employee's rights, it is proper that it should be charged with the responsibility of notifying the employee that there is a possibility he may have a claim for workmen's compensation benefits. Id. 12 Cal. 3d 726, 729.

Florida settlement was not actually litigated and thus does not bar California claims under res judicata or collateral estoppel.

From the decision · page 3In addition, we note that the California Court of Appeal has described the doctrine of res judicata as having a double aspect: