What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; June 25, 2024 Findings and Order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the June 25, 2024 Findings and Order, which found her petition to reopen based on new and further disability was untimely; the WCAB reviewed the record and granted reconsideration.
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 record was insufficient to determine the date of injury or whether the petition to reopen was timely; the defense failed to meet its burden to prove untimeliness, so the matter was remanded for further record development.
From the decision · page 6With respect to the finding that applicant's claim is barred by the five-year statute of limitations under section 5410, we note that the defense of statute of limitations is an affirmative one. Defendant bears the burden of proving same. (Lab. Code, § 5409; Kaiser Found. Hosps. Permanente Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57, 67, fn. 8 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411] ["The running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense (§ 5409), and the burden of proving it has run, therefore, is on the party opposing the claim."].) On this existing record, it appears that the defendant has failed to prove that the filing of the petition to reopen is untimely.