SIMILARCASE

Loading

ADJ9838694 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ9838694 · September 29, 2021

June 16, 2021 Findings of Fact affirmed, denying Petition for Reconsideration

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 0
Authorities named: 2
District office: Stockton

What the panel ordered

June 16, 2021 Findings of Fact affirmed, denying Petition for Reconsideration

Petition for Reconsideration of June 16, 2021 Findings of Fact regarding jurisdiction to award new and further disability due to untimely Petition to Reopen

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.

Jurisdiction / venueDefendant prevailedback · psyche

Applicant's Petition to Reopen was filed more than five years after the date of injury, beyond the jurisdictional time limit, and no good cause for tolling or estoppel was established.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the June 16, 2021 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the WCAB did not have jurisdiction to award new and further disability because applicant's Petition to Reopen was not timely filed and there is no good cause to allow tolling of the statute of limitations.

The facts that decided it

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

Private workspace

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

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Applicant's Petition to Reopen was filed on December 16, 2019, five years and eleven days after the December 5, 2014 injury date.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This filing was beyond the five-year jurisdictional limit for reopening an award under Labor Code sections 5804 and 5410.

From the decision · page 3In this case, applicant's injury occurred on December 5, 2014, but he filed his Petition to Reopen on December 16, 2019, five years and eleven days after his injury. In his trial brief, applicant appeared to contend that the other pleadings wherein he sought to enforce his award of medical treatment and obtain penalties related to enforcement of the award could be construed as a Petition to Reopen within five years of the date of injury. However, none of the documents

Applicant did not allege any action by defendant that he relied upon to his detriment to toll or estop the statute of limitations.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Without such allegations, there is no basis to waive or toll the jurisdictional time limit, leading to denial of reopening.

From the decision · page 4Furthermore, a petitioner for reconsideration forever waives issues that are not set forth specifically and in full detail in its petition. (Lab. Code, § 5902, 5904; Cedillo v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 450, 455§ 456 [36 Cal. Comp. Cases 497, 501]; U.S. Auto Stores v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Brenner) (1971) 4 Cal.3d 469, 476 [36 Cal. Comp. Cases 173, 177§ 178].) Here, applicant's petition fails to make specific and detailed allegations upon which it might be concluded that the time limitation of Labor Code section 5410 was waived or tolled, or that defendant is estopped from raising it. Applicant has not alleged any action by defendant that applicant relied upon to his detriment. Moreover, applicant has not explained how the doctrine of "Scrivener's Error" could be applied in this case, and if applicant intended to seek relief based on a claim of mistake, he was required to set forth specific and detailed allegations in that instance as well. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are unable to provide applicant any relief from the untimely filing.