What the panel ordered
The November 9, 2021 Findings and Order is rescinded and replaced with a finding that the application filed on July 11, 2019 against SIBTF was timely filed.
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 9, 2021 Findings and Order that found the application against SIBTF untimely and dismissed the claim.
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.
Applicant did not know and could not reasonably be deemed to know about the SIBTF claim until 2018 or 2019, and filed the claim promptly after gaining knowledge, making the application timely under Talcott and Adams precedent.
From the decision · page 5We find there is no basis upon which to conclude that the applicant could have known about the existence of an SIBTF claim by 2012. Applicant's uncontroverted testimony was he was not aware of filing a claim against the SIBTF until 2018 or 2019. After he became aware of this, he contacted his current attorney and filed a claim on July 11, 2019. Thus, applicant did not know about SIBTF until 2018 or 2019, and once he did, a claim was filed. There is no evidence of any delay in pursuing his claim against SIBTF. In his Report, the WCJ states:
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's unrebutted testimony that he was unaware of the SIBTF claim until 2018 or 2019 and promptly filed after learning about it.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This testimony established that the claim was filed within a reasonable time after knowledge, making it timely under Talcott and Adams precedent.
From the decision · page 5We find there is no basis upon which to conclude that the applicant could have known about the existence of an SIBTF claim by 2012. Applicant's uncontroverted testimony was he was not aware of filing a claim against the SIBTF until 2018 or 2019. After he became aware of this, he contacted his current attorney and filed a claim on July 11, 2019. Thus, applicant did not know about SIBTF until 2018 or 2019, and once he did, a claim was filed. There is no evidence of any delay in pursuing his claim against SIBTF. In his Report, the WCJ states:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code 5705; Labor Code 3202.5
Preponderance of the evidence standard for burden of proof.
The burden of proof rests on the party holding the affirmative; preponderance means more convincing force and greater probability of truth.
From the decision · page 4Turning to the merits, petitioner asserts that the WCJ erred in finding applicant's case to be time-barred. The burden of proof rests upon the party holding the affirmative of the issue, and all parties shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code § 5705; Lantz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 298, 313 [79 Cal.Comp.Cases 488]; Hand Rehabilitation Center v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Obernier) (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1204 [60 Cal.Comp.Cases 289].) "Preponderance of the evidence" is defined by section 3202.5 as the "evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and the greater probability of truth. When weighing the evidence, the test is not the relative number of witnesses, but the relative convincing force of the evidence." (Lab. Code § 3202.5.)
Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmens' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Talcott) (1970) 2 Cal.3d 56
Talcott rule on timeliness of SIBTF claims.
If applicant did not know and could not reasonably be deemed to know about SIBTF claim within five years of injury, claim is timely if filed within reasonable time after knowledge.
From the decision · page 4The issue of the timeliness of filing an SIBTF case is an affirmative defense. As such, the burden lies with the defendant. There are four Supreme Court cases that provide guidance on the issue of timeliness of a SIBTF claim: Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmens' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Talcott) (1970) 2 Cal.3d 56, 65 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 80]; Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmens' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pullum) (1970) 2 Cal.3d 78 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 96]; Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmens' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Woodburn) (1970) 2 Cal.3d 81 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 98]; Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmens' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Baca) (1970) 2 Cal.3d 74 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 94]. The Supreme Court in Talcott, the seminal case on this issue, provided:
Interpretation of Talcott in Adams v. SIBTF (2020).
Clarifies limitation period depends on applicant's knowledge of entitlement to SIBTF benefits.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's unrebutted testimony that he was unaware of the SIBTF claim until 2018 or 2019 and promptly filed after learning about it.
From the decision · page 5We find there is no basis upon which to conclude that the applicant could have known about the existence of an SIBTF claim by 2012. Applicant's uncontroverted testimony was he was not aware of filing a claim against the SIBTF until 2018 or 2019. After he became aware of this, he contacted his current attorney and filed a claim on July 11, 2019. Thus, applicant did not know about SIBTF until 2018 or 2019, and once he did, a claim was filed. There is no evidence of any delay in pursuing his claim against SIBTF. In his Report, the WCJ states:
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.