ADJ20958335 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and decision consistent with the opinion.p. 7

Applicant seeks reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order of May 1, 2026, which denied his workers' compensation claim for industrial injury and barred the claim by the statute of limitations. The WCAB granted reconsideration and returned the matter to the trial level for further development of the record and reconsideration of all issues on an augmented record.

Read the official decision →

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.

AOE/COERemandedback · knees · arms · shoulders · feet · stress · psyche · sleep difficulty

The WCJ found no industrial injury due to lack of contemporaneous medical records and witness statements, but the WCAB found this insufficient and ordered further development including a medical opinion on causation and reconsideration of credibility findings.

From the decision · page 5It appears that, beyond the statute of limitations issue, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury because there were not contemporaneous records documenting injury. Qualified medical evaluator orthopedist Christopher LeBrun wrote in his October 17, 2025 report, “While it is medically reasonable that the applicant’s current symptomatology in the neck, thoracic spine, bilaterial shoulders and bilateral feet is at least partially attributed to the repetitive nature of his regular and customary occupational demands as a full-time laborer worker for California Steel Industrias, Inc., there were no corroborating medical records submitted regarding the applicant’s complaints during the duration of his employment and no witness statements.” (October 17, 2025 report at p.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant left employment in February 2020 due to physical inability to continue work, stating it was wearing him down and making him feel unsafe.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact is central to determining when the statute of limitations began to run and whether applicant was temporarily disabled at that time.

From the decision · page 4continue.” (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of February 17, 2026 trial at p. 4.) He testified that he stated in his exit interview that “he didn’t feel like he could continue to do the work. It was wearing him down, and it made him feel unsafe going in there. He felt that quitting was the best choice for him.” (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of February 17, 2026 trial at p. 7.)

Applicant sought medical treatment for back and shoulder pain shortly after leaving employment in February 2020.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supports applicant's claim of industrial injury and challenges the WCJ's finding of no contemporaneous medical records documenting injury.

From the decision · page 3He complained of back pain after this accident and was treated with Flexeril. Applicant again sought treatment for back pain on February 1, 2020, this time attributing back pain to his work. (Ex. E.) Applicant was treated again on February 26, 2020 complaining of shoulder pain. At a February 26, 2020 medical appointment, applicant complained stated that he was quitting his job due to the physical stress and reported to his doctors that he would no longer have medical insurance as of the following month. (Ex. D.) Applicant left his employment with defendant employer around February of 2020. He testified that he told his employer that he was leaving because he was “physically unable to

Applicant was involved in a non-industrial motor vehicle accident in November 2019, complicating causation analysis.

Favours neutral

Indicates the need for a medical opinion to distinguish industrial injury from non-industrial causes.

From the decision · page 6We also note that applicant also apparently was involved in a non-industrial motor vehicle accident around this time as well. We believe it would be helpful to the WCJ in determining causation if a reporting physician could give an opinion on industrial causation based on the history given and the medical records, including the history of the pre-existing workers’ compensation claim and the contemporaneous non-industrial motor vehicle accident. We note that while the WCJ states that he did not find the applicant credible, he does not specify what exactly was not considered credible, and how any testimony or history given negates the compensability of his claim.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Lab. Code, § 5405

A claim is timely if filed within one year of the latest of date of injury, last payment of disability indemnity, or last date medical treatment was furnished.

The WCJ found the statute of limitations began running at employment cessation, but the WCAB ordered further development to clarify disability status at that time.

From the decision · page 4With regard to the statute of limitations issue, the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving it is on the party opposing the claim. (Lab. Code, § 5409; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Martin) (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57, 67, fn. 8 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411].) The burden is on defendant to show when the statute of limitations began to run, “starting from any and all three points designated [in Labor Code section 5405].” (Colonial Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Nickles) (1945) 27 Cal.2d 437, 441 [10 Cal.Comp.Cases 321].) The three points designated in section 5405 are date of injury (Lab. Code, § 5405, subd. (a)); the last payment of disability indemnity (Lab. Code, § 5405, subd. (b)); and the last date on which medical treatment benefits were furnished (Lab. Code, § 5405, subd. (c).) A claim is timely if it is filed within a year of the latest of these three points.

Lab. Code, § 5412

The date of injury in cumulative injury cases is when the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was caused by employment.

The WCAB ordered further development to clarify when applicant first suffered compensable disability for statute of limitations purposes.

From the decision · page 4In this case, applicant was not provided with workers’ compensation benefits so the relevant point for statute of limitations purposes is the date of injury. The date of injury in cumulative injury cases 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.” (Lab. Code, § 5412.) “A ‘disability’ under the Workmen’s Compensation Law connotes an inability to work.” (Herrera v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 254, 257 [34 Cal.Comp.Cases 382].) In State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rodarte) (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 998 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 579], the Court of Appeal made clear that neither medical treatment nor modified work restrictions without wage loss, in and of themselves, are sufficient to constitute “disability” for purposes of Labor Code section 5412. As explained in Rodarte, Labor Code section 5412 requires compensable disability, either temporary or permanent. Permanent disability is not compensable until it is ratable. Except in the case of insidious, progressive

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Evidence weighed

Applicant's testimony about physical demands and pain, and his statement to employer about quitting due to physical inability to continue work.

From the decision · page 3Applicant testified that he began working for defendant employer in the summer of 2017 as a temporary worker and began working permanently with them as of November of 2017. According to applicant’s testimony, he began to work in mobile equipment but about one year after working full time he was assigned to the pipe mill. He says that he did not have symptoms when he began working in the pipe mill but after one year of working in the pipe mill, he began to feel pain. He testified that the work in the pipe mill involved lifting about 50 pounds and constantly picking up a grinder that weighed over 20 pounds. He testified that after a year of working in the pipe mill, he felt tightness in his shoulders but did not report the injury. Afterwards, applicant was assigned to the galvanization mill where he also reported working with 20-pound tools and having to lift 50 pounds. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of February 17, 2026 trial at pp. 4-5.) According to medical records, applicant was involved in a non-industrial motor vehicle accident in November of 2019.

Evidence weighed

Medical records showing treatment for back and shoulder pain in February 2020, shortly after employment ended.

From the decision · page 3He complained of back pain after this accident and was treated with Flexeril. Applicant again sought treatment for back pain on February 1, 2020, this time attributing back pain to his work. (Ex. E.) Applicant was treated again on February 26, 2020 complaining of shoulder pain. At a February 26, 2020 medical appointment, applicant complained stated that he was quitting his job due to the physical stress and reported to his doctors that he would no longer have medical insurance as of the following month. (Ex. D.) Applicant left his employment with defendant employer around February of 2020. He testified that he told his employer that he was leaving because he was “physically unable to

Evidence weighed

Non-industrial motor vehicle accident in November 2019 complicating causation analysis.

From the decision · page 6We also note that applicant also apparently was involved in a non-industrial motor vehicle accident around this time as well. We believe it would be helpful to the WCJ in determining causation if a reporting physician could give an opinion on industrial causation based on the history given and the medical records, including the history of the pre-existing workers’ compensation claim and the contemporaneous non-industrial motor vehicle accident. We note that while the WCJ states that he did not find the applicant credible, he does not specify what exactly was not considered credible, and how any testimony or history given negates the compensability of his claim.

ADJ20958335 · August 3, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page