ADJ18371631 · March 13, 2026

The WCJ relied on substantial medical evidence from PQME Dr. Stoller and credible applicant testimony to find injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees during the cumulative trauma period through June 30, 2017.

From the decision · page 3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the "proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or `convincing.'" (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Here, to find industrial injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees, the WCJ relied on the medical evidence of global PQME, Adam J.

Applicant worked in California during the cumulative trauma period and the employment contract was initiated in California, supporting California jurisdiction despite some work in Nevada.

From the decision · page 133. California jurisdiction to adjudicate applicant's claim of injury. Finally, with respect to its jurisdictional argument, defendant focuses on applicant's last year of employment in order to claim that applicant spent more time in Nevada than California. In doing so, it conflates the notion of liability for an injury between multiple defendants with definition of the period of injurious exposure that caused applicant's injury [see Lab. Code, § 3208.1 [defining "cumulative injury" as "one occurring as repetitive mentally or physically traumatic activities extending over a period of time, the combined effect of which causes any disability or need for medical treatment"]). Section 5500.5 sets forth the framework for determining liability when an applicant has had more than one employer.

Applicant filed the claim within the statute of limitations period based on the legal date of injury under Labor Code section 5412, and defendant failed to prove actual knowledge of injury prior to that date.

From the decision · page 12Defendant has presented no substantial medical evidence of applicant's knowledge but for the May 24, 2024, report of Dr. Stoller. Consequently, per section 5412, applicant had knowledge of injury on May 24, 2024, and it is the legal date of applicant's cumulative injury at Hampton Tedder. Applicant filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim for this injury on August 21, 2023. Hence, the applicant's claim is not untimely or barred by the statute of limitations.

Applicant worked in California during the cumulative trauma period and had an employment contract initiated in California.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the WCAB's jurisdiction over the claim despite some work in Nevada.

Applicant filed the claim on August 21, 2023, within the statute of limitations period based on the legal date of injury of May 24, 2024.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact defeated the defendant's statute of limitations defense.

From the decision · page 12Defendant has presented no substantial medical evidence of applicant's knowledge but for the May 24, 2024, report of Dr. Stoller. Consequently, per section 5412, applicant had knowledge of injury on May 24, 2024, and it is the legal date of applicant's cumulative injury at Hampton Tedder. Applicant filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim for this injury on August 21, 2023. Hence, the applicant's claim is not untimely or barred by the statute of limitations.

Dr. Stoller's May 24, 2024, report constitutes substantial medical evidence of cumulative injury through June 30, 2017.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This medical evidence supported the finding of injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees.

From the decision · page 7Here, Dr. Stoller took adequate histories from applicant, conducted a physical examination of applicant and explained that forceful pushing, pulling, lifting, twisting, overhead work and repeatedly using tools forcefully caused injury to applicant while he worked at Hampton Tedder over the course of 20 years. Dr. Stoller issued his reports to a reasonable degree of medical probability and the reports are free from guess or incorrect legal theories. Accordingly, Dr. Stoller's May 24, 2024, report is substantial medical evidence of applicant's cumulative injury through June 30, 2017, at Hampton Tedder.

Applicant's credible testimony corroborated the nature and timing of the cumulative injuries.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The WCJ relied on this testimony along with medical evidence to find injury AOE/COE.

From the decision · page 7To determine causation, the WCJ also relied on applicant's credible trial testimony3 about his injury through June 30, 2017, including:

Dr. Stoller conducted a thorough evaluation, including history, physical exam, and record review, diagnosing bilateral end-stage shoulder osteoarthritis, bilateral arm pain, low back pain, and bilateral knee pain. He opined to a reasonable medical probability that the injuries were caused by cumulative trauma through June 30, 2017, while employed at Hampton Tedder.

The WCJ relied on Dr. Stoller's substantial medical evidence and detailed causation explanation to find injury AOE/COE.

From the decision · page 3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the "proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or `convincing.'" (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Here, to find industrial injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees, the WCJ relied on the medical evidence of global PQME, Adam J.

South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291

Burden of proof for injury AOE/COE is preponderance of the evidence

The WCJ applied this standard to find injury AOE/COE based on medical evidence and testimony.

From the decision · page 3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the "proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or `convincing.'" (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Here, to find industrial injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees, the WCJ relied on the medical evidence of global PQME, Adam J.

Labor Code section 5412

Date of injury for cumulative injuries requires concurrence of disability and knowledge

The WCJ applied this to determine the legal date of injury as May 24, 2024, when applicant had knowledge and disability.

From the decision · page 9Next, we will consider applicant's legal date of cumulative injury. 2. Date of injury under section 5412. Section 5412 states: "The date of injury in cases of...cumulative injuries is that date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment." Therefore, in cumulative injury cases, there is no "date of injury" until there is a concurrence of both disability and knowledge. (Bassett-McGregor v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1988) 205 Cal. App. 3d 1102, 1110 [53 Cal.Comp.Cases 502].)

Labor Code section 5409

Statute of limitations is an affirmative defense requiring employer to prove actual knowledge

The WCJ applied this to reject defendant's statute of limitations defense due to lack of proof of actual knowledge.

From the decision · page 16III DISCUSSION a. APPLICANT'S CLAIM IS NOT BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. (Labor Code section 5409.) The employer has the burden to establish either that written notice was given to the employee or that the employee had actual notice of his workers' compensation rights. (Sidders v. WCAB (Moore) (1988) 53 CCC 445, 452; See also Labor Code sec. 138.3 and 5402.) If the employer cannot prove that it provided an employee with notice of workers' compensation rights and procedures, it may not rely on the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations to defeat an employee's claim. (R. W. Colgate, dba California Tile Co. v. WCAB (Sanchez) (2013) 78 CCC 266 (writ denied).) The employer bears the burden of proving actual knowledge. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Permanente Medical Group v. WCAB (Martin) (1985) 50 CCC 411, 41[2].) Actual knowledge is knowledge given directly to, or received personally by, a party. (CIGA v. WCAB (Carls) (2008) 73 CCC 771, 779.) Constructive knowledge (awareness the employee should have possessed) is not sufficient. (Id.)

Applicant's credible testimony about his injury and work history

From the decision · page 3In addition to the analysis set forth in the WCJ's Report, we observe the following. The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the "proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or `convincing.'" (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Here, to find industrial injury AOE/COE to the low back, bilateral shoulders and bilateral knees, the WCJ relied on the medical evidence of global PQME, Adam J.