ADJ17764448 · February 13, 2026

The WCJ found the claim barred by the post-termination defense because the employer lacked notice of injury prior to termination; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record and analyze notice of injury under relevant precedent.

From the decision · page 1A workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued a Findings and Orders in this matter served on December 15, 2025. In the decision, it was found that applicant's claim that while employed on July 13, 2022, as an HVAC technician, he sustained industrial injury to his neck, back and "body systems, specifically stress and anxiety" was barred by the Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) post-termination defense, which states, in pertinent part:

Applicant was involved in an automobile accident on July 13, 2022, and reported it to employer but misled employer about details.

Favours neutral

This fact relates to whether employer had notice of injury prior to termination under the post-termination defense.

From the decision · page 2In this matter, applicant was involved in automobile accident on July 13, 2022. Applicant reported the accident but apparently misled the employer regarding the details of the accident. In an incident report completed two days after the accident, applicant wrote "none" under the "Name of Injured Person" and checked off that he would like to "postpone or not seek medical treatment at this time." Applicant continued to work his regular hours until the employer allegedly determined that applicant lied about the details of the accident. Applicant was then terminated. Applicant testified at trial that he "had ongoing pain to his tailbone and lower back area. He was asked whether he ever reported having pain to the company. He says he did report something before getting terminated, but they seemed more concerned about the accident itself. [Supervisor] Jaime did not offer to send him to a doctor, and he did not give him a claim form." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of October 20, 2025 trial at p. 5.)

Applicant continued to work regular hours until employer determined applicant lied about accident details and then terminated him.

Favours neutral

This fact is relevant to timing of notice and termination under the post-termination defense.

From the decision · page 2In this matter, applicant was involved in automobile accident on July 13, 2022. Applicant reported the accident but apparently misled the employer regarding the details of the accident. In an incident report completed two days after the accident, applicant wrote "none" under the "Name of Injured Person" and checked off that he would like to "postpone or not seek medical treatment at this time." Applicant continued to work his regular hours until the employer allegedly determined that applicant lied about the details of the accident. Applicant was then terminated. Applicant testified at trial that he "had ongoing pain to his tailbone and lower back area. He was asked whether he ever reported having pain to the company. He says he did report something before getting terminated, but they seemed more concerned about the accident itself. [Supervisor] Jaime did not offer to send him to a doctor, and he did not give him a claim form." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of October 20, 2025 trial at p. 5.)

Applicant testified he had ongoing pain before termination but employer did not offer medical treatment or claim form.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact bears on whether employer had notice of injury prior to termination.

From the decision · page 2In this matter, applicant was involved in automobile accident on July 13, 2022. Applicant reported the accident but apparently misled the employer regarding the details of the accident. In an incident report completed two days after the accident, applicant wrote "none" under the "Name of Injured Person" and checked off that he would like to "postpone or not seek medical treatment at this time." Applicant continued to work his regular hours until the employer allegedly determined that applicant lied about the details of the accident. Applicant was then terminated. Applicant testified at trial that he "had ongoing pain to his tailbone and lower back area. He was asked whether he ever reported having pain to the company. He says he did report something before getting terminated, but they seemed more concerned about the accident itself. [Supervisor] Jaime did not offer to send him to a doctor, and he did not give him a claim form." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of October 20, 2025 trial at p. 5.)

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) post-termination defense

The defense bars compensation unless the employee shows employer had notice of injury prior to termination or other specified conditions.

From the decision · page 1A workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued a Findings and Orders in this matter served on December 15, 2025. In the decision, it was found that applicant's claim that while employed on July 13, 2022, as an HVAC technician, he sustained industrial injury to his neck, back and "body systems, specifically stress and anxiety" was barred by the Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) post-termination defense, which states, in pertinent part:

Labor Code sections 3208.1, 5401

No injury without disability or need for medical treatment under Labor Code sections 3208.1 and 5401

The WCJ found no injury because there was no disability or need for medical treatment by termination date, thus no notice of injury.

From the decision · page 2While it is undisputed that applicant brought his claim after notice of termination, he argues that, pursuant to subdivision (A), the employer had notice of injury prior to the termination. The WCJ explained in the Opinion on Decision that they found that the employer did not have the requisite notice of "injury" because, since there was no disability or need for medical treatment by the time of the termination, there was no "injury" pursuant to Labor Code sections 3208.1 or 5401.