What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's last date of injurious exposure was November 21, 2021, the last day worked for the employer.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This date sets the one-year liability period under Labor Code section 5500.5 for employer/carrier liability.
From the decision · page 3him … to the hazards of the occupational disease or cumulative injury, whichever occurs first.”
Applicant worked for defendant until November 21, 2021.
Zurich argues that liability cannot be imposed against it because applicant did not present
substantial medical evidence that applicant sustained injurious exposure during its period of
alleged coverage. In other words, while it is uncontested that applicant worked until November 21,
2021, Zurich complains that applicant did not prove that any industrial exposure between the
period between September 16, 2021 and November 21, 2021 contributed to disability or the need
for further medical treatment.
While Zurich is correct that a defendant may escape liability if it can show that a discrete
period of employment was not injurious (Scott Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.
Applicant's date of knowledge of industrial causation was September 2, 2022, when Dr. Lira informed him his condition was work-related.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This date establishes the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury and supports the timeliness of the claim filing.
From the decision · page 5However, we find that
applicant’s main symptoms of difficulty with exertion were not obviously caused by exposure to
silica, and applicant was actually initially referred to a cardiologist rather than a pulmonologist.
(December 18, 2023 report of QME Hendel at p. 19.) Applicant was not given a definitive
diagnosis of silicosis until October 12, 2022. (October 12, 2022 report of Dr. Lira.) The WCJ
correctly found that applicant was not chargeable with knowledge of industrial causation until he
first saw Dr. Lira. Applicant testified at trial that “Dr. Lira told him that his condition was caused
by work. He was told this by Dr. Lira in approximately August of 2022.” (Minutes of Hearing and
Summary of Evidence of March 16, 2026 trial at p. 3.) The record shows that applicant first saw
Dr. Lira on September 2, 2022, just two days after August of 2022, and thus consistent with
applicant’s testimony. Accordingly, we affirm the WCJ’s analysis that applicant’s date of
knowledge of industrial causation was September 2, 2022.
C. Date of First Disability
Applicant was temporarily totally disabled from August 10, 2022 through February 1, 2024, based on medical evidence and hospitalization records.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact supports the award of temporary disability benefits for the specified period.
From the decision · page 8disability. We defer the issue of temporary disability after February 1, 2024 pending further
development of the record. Similarly, we defer the issue of any periods of temporary disability
preceding August 10, 2022 pending further development of the record.
Although the defendant also casts doubt on the temporary disability period based on
“evidence” of applicant’s employment as a home health aid, the only evidence in the record was
applicant’s testimony that he “stopped taking care of his son through IHSS in 2022.” (Minutes of
Hearing and Summary of Evidence of March 16, 2022 trial at p. 4.) Accordingly, there is no
evidence that applicant was employed during any periods for which we have found temporary
disability.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Zurich’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award
of June 15, 2026 is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’
Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings and Award of June 15, 2026 is AMENDED as
follows: