ADJ17793590 · September 23, 2024

Defendant did not prove applicant was not working on the injury date; payroll records showed applicant was paid for hours including the injury date.

From the decision · page 4The Fed Ex payroll records show that the applicant was paid for 25.3 hours of work for the pay period ending February 17, 2007. (Joint Exhibit 101, page 2.) The actual days worked in that pay period were not broken down. Applicant was written up of a February 12, 2007 incident that was determined to be an unsafe practice. (Exhibit 1.) No evidence was presented that the applicant did not work at Fed Ex on February 12, 2007. I therefore find that the defendant has not shown that the applicant did not work on the claimed date of injury.

Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from delay, so the claim is not barred by laches.

From the decision · page 4It can certainly be presumed that defendant was prejudiced by applicant waiting 15 years from the claimed date of injury to file a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Applicant could not recall the names of coworkers who he believed witnessed the injury, nor could he recall the names of doctors or facilities from which he claimed to have he sought medical treatment. However, defendant presented no evidence as to how it was prejudiced by the delay in filing a claim. Instead, they are relying on the undersigned to infer prejudice. "Prejudice is not presumed, it must be affirmatively demonstrated." (Ragan v. City of Hawthorne (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1361, 1367.) As defendant did not affirmatively demonstrate it was prejudiced by the applicant's failure to timely file a claim, I find that defendant has not meet its burden of proof that this claim is barred by the doctrine of laches.

Defendant failed to prove applicant was terminated before claim filing; record development deferred to determine if post-termination defense applies.

From the decision · page 7Defendant did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, as required, that "the claim for compensation was filed after a notice of termination or layoff, including voluntary layoff, and that the claim is for an injury occurring prior to the time of notice of termination or layoff." (Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(10), 3202.5, 5705.) Thus, there is no adequate evidence to support the finding that applicant was terminated, and no adequate evidence that applicant's claim is barred by the post-termination defense. Once the defendant has made the initial showing necessary to a post-termination defense, the burden shifts to applicant to establish one of the available exceptions listed in section 3600, subdivisions (a)(10)(A) through (D). Here, although defendant failed to make the required initial showing, applicant has demonstrated that an exception to the compensation bar, in section 3600, subdivision (a)(10)(A),

The WCJ found no basis for tolling the statute of limitations, but the Appeals Board found evidence that the statute of limitations should have been tolled due to defendant's failure to provide a claim form and timely notice of injury.

From the decision · page 9Here, the WCJ explained that "As no indemnity or medical treatment has been provided, the statute of limitations runs from the date of the claimed specific injury of February 12, 2007." (Opinion on Decision, at p. 5.) The WCJ found that applicant did not show "that defendant had notice of injury or notice of claim sufficient to raise a duty for defendant to provide the applicant with a DWC-1 claim form and notice of potential eligibility for workers' compensation benefits" and found that there is no basis for tolling the statute of limitations. (F&O, at p. 1.)

Defendant did not demonstrate prejudice from applicant's 15-year delay in filing claim.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without proof of prejudice, the laches defense fails, allowing the claim to proceed.

From the decision · page 4It can certainly be presumed that defendant was prejudiced by applicant waiting 15 years from the claimed date of injury to file a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Applicant could not recall the names of coworkers who he believed witnessed the injury, nor could he recall the names of doctors or facilities from which he claimed to have he sought medical treatment. However, defendant presented no evidence as to how it was prejudiced by the delay in filing a claim. Instead, they are relying on the undersigned to infer prejudice. "Prejudice is not presumed, it must be affirmatively demonstrated." (Ragan v. City of Hawthorne (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1361, 1367.) As defendant did not affirmatively demonstrate it was prejudiced by the applicant's failure to timely file a claim, I find that defendant has not meet its burden of proof that this claim is barred by the doctrine of laches.

Payroll records showed applicant was paid for hours including February 12, 2007.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This evidence disproved defendant's claim that applicant was not working on the injury date.

From the decision · page 4The Fed Ex payroll records show that the applicant was paid for 25.3 hours of work for the pay period ending February 17, 2007. (Joint Exhibit 101, page 2.) The actual days worked in that pay period were not broken down. Applicant was written up of a February 12, 2007 incident that was determined to be an unsafe practice. (Exhibit 1.) No evidence was presented that the applicant did not work at Fed Ex on February 12, 2007. I therefore find that the defendant has not shown that the applicant did not work on the claimed date of injury.

Defendant failed to prove applicant was terminated before claim filing and did not provide evidence of termination date.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without proof of termination, the post-termination defense cannot bar the claim; further record development is needed.

From the decision · page 7Defendant did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, as required, that "the claim for compensation was filed after a notice of termination or layoff, including voluntary layoff, and that the claim is for an injury occurring prior to the time of notice of termination or layoff." (Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(10), 3202.5, 5705.) Thus, there is no adequate evidence to support the finding that applicant was terminated, and no adequate evidence that applicant's claim is barred by the post-termination defense. Once the defendant has made the initial showing necessary to a post-termination defense, the burden shifts to applicant to establish one of the available exceptions listed in section 3600, subdivisions (a)(10)(A) through (D). Here, although defendant failed to make the required initial showing, applicant has demonstrated that an exception to the compensation bar, in section 3600, subdivision (a)(10)(A),

Applicant testified he was medically terminated about a month after the injury and was not provided a claim form.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This testimony supports tolling the statute of limitations due to defendant's failure to notify and provide a claim form.

From the decision · page 9The evidence suggests, however, that the statute of limitations should have been tolled, based on defendant's failure to timely provide a claim form to applicant, as required. (Martin, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at 60; Lab. Code § 5401, 5402(a).) Applicant testified that he was not provided with a claim form. (MOH 5/14/24, at p. 5.) Applicant provided written evidence and testimony demonstrating that defendant was aware of the incident which caused his injury, and of the injury itself. First, applicant was reprimanded, in writing, for this incident. (Applicant's Exh. 1.) Moreover, as discussed above, applicant testified that he was "medically terminated" within "a month or so" of his 2007 injury, which belies defendant's assertions that it was unaware of applicant's injury until the 2023 claim was filed. (MOH 5/14/24, at p. 5.) Applicant also testified that after he stopped working for FedEx, "the next month he was called in to sign medical termination paperwork. He does not recall the date. He knows he went in for treatment, but does not recall where. He was directed by a letter from FedEx to go to a certain physician, but he doesn't have that letter." (MOH 5/14/24, at p. 6.)

Kaiser Found. Hosps. Permanente Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Martin) (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57

The statute of limitations is tolled if the employer failed to notify the injured employee of a potential right to workers' compensation benefits by providing the claim form and notice of potential eligibility of benefits required under section 5401.

The Board found evidence that the statute of limitations should have been tolled due to defendant's failure to provide a claim form and timely notice of injury.

From the decision · page 9The evidence suggests, however, that the statute of limitations should have been tolled, based on defendant's failure to timely provide a claim form to applicant, as required. (Martin, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at 60; Lab. Code § 5401, 5402(a).) Applicant testified that he was not provided with a claim form. (MOH 5/14/24, at p. 5.) Applicant provided written evidence and testimony demonstrating that defendant was aware of the incident which caused his injury, and of the injury itself. First, applicant was reprimanded, in writing, for this incident. (Applicant's Exh. 1.) Moreover, as discussed above, applicant testified that he was "medically terminated" within "a month or so" of his 2007 injury, which belies defendant's assertions that it was unaware of applicant's injury until the 2023 claim was filed. (MOH 5/14/24, at p. 5.) Applicant also testified that after he stopped working for FedEx, "the next month he was called in to sign medical termination paperwork. He does not recall the date. He knows he went in for treatment, but does not recall where. He was directed by a letter from FedEx to go to a certain physician, but he doesn't have that letter." (MOH 5/14/24, at p. 6.)

Ragan v. City of Hawthorne (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1361

To prevail on the defense of laches, the defendant must establish unreasonable delay and prejudice from that delay.

Defendant did not affirmatively demonstrate prejudice from delay, so the claim is not barred by laches.

From the decision · page 4It can certainly be presumed that defendant was prejudiced by applicant waiting 15 years from the claimed date of injury to file a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Applicant could not recall the names of coworkers who he believed witnessed the injury, nor could he recall the names of doctors or facilities from which he claimed to have he sought medical treatment. However, defendant presented no evidence as to how it was prejudiced by the delay in filing a claim. Instead, they are relying on the undersigned to infer prejudice. "Prejudice is not presumed, it must be affirmatively demonstrated." (Ragan v. City of Hawthorne (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1361, 1367.) As defendant did not affirmatively demonstrate it was prejudiced by the applicant's failure to timely file a claim, I find that defendant has not meet its burden of proof that this claim is barred by the doctrine of laches.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)

The initial burden in asserting a post-termination bar to compensation rests with the defendant, who must establish that the claim was filed after notice of termination or layoff and that the claim is for an injury occurring prior to the time of notice of termination or layoff.

Defendant failed to meet its burden to prove post-termination defense; record development deferred to determine applicability.

From the decision · page 7Defendant did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, as required, that "the claim for compensation was filed after a notice of termination or layoff, including voluntary layoff, and that the claim is for an injury occurring prior to the time of notice of termination or layoff." (Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(10), 3202.5, 5705.) Thus, there is no adequate evidence to support the finding that applicant was terminated, and no adequate evidence that applicant's claim is barred by the post-termination defense. Once the defendant has made the initial showing necessary to a post-termination defense, the burden shifts to applicant to establish one of the available exceptions listed in section 3600, subdivisions (a)(10)(A) through (D). Here, although defendant failed to make the required initial showing, applicant has demonstrated that an exception to the compensation bar, in section 3600, subdivision (a)(10)(A),

Payroll records showing applicant was paid for hours including the injury date

From the decision · page 4The Fed Ex payroll records show that the applicant was paid for 25.3 hours of work for the pay period ending February 17, 2007. (Joint Exhibit 101, page 2.) The actual days worked in that pay period were not broken down. Applicant was written up of a February 12, 2007 incident that was determined to be an unsafe practice. (Exhibit 1.) No evidence was presented that the applicant did not work at Fed Ex on February 12, 2007. I therefore find that the defendant has not shown that the applicant did not work on the claimed date of injury.

Applicant's testimony that he was not provided a claim form and was medically terminated shortly after injury

From the decision · page 9The evidence suggests, however, that the statute of limitations should have been tolled, based on defendant's failure to timely provide a claim form to applicant, as required. (Martin, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at 60; Lab. Code § 5401, 5402(a).) Applicant testified that he was not provided with a claim form. (MOH 5/14/24, at p. 5.) Applicant provided written evidence and testimony demonstrating that defendant was aware of the incident which caused his injury, and of the injury itself. First, applicant was reprimanded, in writing, for this incident. (Applicant's Exh. 1.) Moreover, as discussed above, applicant testified that he was "medically terminated" within "a month or so" of his 2007 injury, which belies defendant's assertions that it was unaware of applicant's injury until the 2023 claim was filed. (MOH 5/14/24, at p. 5.) Applicant also testified that after he stopped working for FedEx, "the next month he was called in to sign medical termination paperwork. He does not recall the date. He knows he went in for treatment, but does not recall where. He was directed by a letter from FedEx to go to a certain physician, but he doesn't have that letter." (MOH 5/14/24, at p. 6.)

Defendant did not present evidence of prejudice from delay in filing claim

From the decision · page 4It can certainly be presumed that defendant was prejudiced by applicant waiting 15 years from the claimed date of injury to file a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Applicant could not recall the names of coworkers who he believed witnessed the injury, nor could he recall the names of doctors or facilities from which he claimed to have he sought medical treatment. However, defendant presented no evidence as to how it was prejudiced by the delay in filing a claim. Instead, they are relying on the undersigned to infer prejudice. "Prejudice is not presumed, it must be affirmatively demonstrated." (Ragan v. City of Hawthorne (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1361, 1367.) As defendant did not affirmatively demonstrate it was prejudiced by the applicant's failure to timely file a claim, I find that defendant has not meet its burden of proof that this claim is barred by the doctrine of laches.