ADJ9400358 · March 23, 2026

The WCJ found the claim time-barred under section 5405, but the WCAB found the record insufficient to determine the last date of employer-provided medical treatment to toll the statute of limitations and remanded for further development.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Order (F&O) issued on June 7, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that Labor Code section 54051 time-barred applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits thereby resulting in him taking nothing from his claims filed herein.

Applicant filed claim more than one year after the May 14, 2007 injury date.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact triggered the statute of limitations under Labor Code section 5405, barring the claim unless tolling applies.

From the decision · page 4In the instant case, applicant claims that his injury occurred on May 14, 2007. Applicant did not file his application for adjudication of claim until April 15, 2014. Applicant therefore filed his claim more than the one-year period under section 5405(a). Nonetheless, the employer's provision of healthcare benefits constitutes the provision of benefits specified in section 5405(c) and may toll the running of the statute of limitations.

Record lacks evidentiary support for the last date of employer-provided medical treatment to toll the statute of limitations.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without this evidence, the WCAB cannot determine if the claim is time-barred, necessitating remand for further development.

From the decision · page 5Here, while the WCJ wrote in his Report that applicant filed his application "six years from the last date of employer provided treatment," (Report, at p. 4) we are unable to discern from the record evidentiary support for that statement. Accordingly, upon remand, the WCJ will need to develop the evidentiary record and determine in accordance with section 5405(c) the last date the employer provided medical treatment attributable to applicant's May 14, 2007 back injury. This is essential in determining if the claim is indeed time-barred under section 5405(c).

Noted lack of historical credibility of applicant's recollection of injury dates.

The WCJ noted Dr. Gross's observation of applicant's lack of historical credibility regarding injury dates, which impacted the credibility of the claim timeline.

From the decision · page 3At trial herein applicant initially denied recollection of the admitted and chronicled 5/14/07 injury but claimed he did recall an undocumented 5/7/07 injury. The undersigned did not find applicant's historical recollection to be credible. A lack of historical credibility was also noted by Alan Gross, M.D. who reported initially as a PQME in 2013 (Court Exhibit 1).

J.T. Thorp v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 327

An applicant must commence proceedings within one year of the date of injury, last payment of disability indemnity, or last furnishing of medical treatment (Labor Code section 5405).

The WCJ applied this standard to determine timeliness of the claim.

From the decision · page 4Thus, an applicant must commence proceedings with the WCAB within one year of (1) the date of injury; or (2) the expiration of the period covered by the employer's last payment of disability indemnity; or (3) the date of the last furnishing by the employer of medical, surgical or hospital treatment. (J.T. Thorp v. Workers' Comp. Appeals. Bd. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 327, 333-334 [49 Cal.Comp.Cases 224].)

Applicant did not request a panel, seek representation, or request additional treatment contemporaneous with notices and release from treatment, and continued working usual duties.

From the decision · page 2Applicant was released to return to work with work restrictions that were apparently provided by the employer. Applicant was paid temporary partial disability indemnity (TPD) while being treated. An initial TPD notice was provided (Defendant Exhibit B), as well as a follow up notice when TPD ended on 6/26/07 when applicant was released to full duty (Defendant Exhibit C). Treatment continued at Los Angeles Orthopedic Institute with subsequent referral to orthopedist Dominic Sisto, M.D. (Defendant Exhibit G). Subsequent notices were timely provided by the employer relating to the inability to determine if there was any permanent disability (PD) (Defendant Exhibit D), a NOPE letter on 7/12/07 (Defendant Exhibit E), and subsequently a PD denial letter following a final PTP release report on 11/29/07 (Defendant Exhibit F). Applicant did not request a panel, seek representation, nor request additional treatment contemporaneous with the notices and release from treatment, and continued working his usual and customary duties for the employer.