What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; January 7, 2022 Joint Findings and Orders rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings
Petition for Reconsideration granted, January 7, 2022 Joint Findings and Orders rescinded, matter returned to trial level for further proceedings
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.
The WCJ's original decision did not clearly identify the specific statutes at issue or the date of injury under section 5412, which is necessary to determine if the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify these issues.
From the decision · page 3The WCJ issued the F&O on January 7, 2022, finding in pertinent part that "the statutes of limitations" were tolled until the applicant was advised of the statutory deadlines for filing a claim under Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726, 729 [39 Cal. Comp. Cases 768]. The opinion further determined that no claim form was ever provided to applicant by his employer. Accordingly, the WCJ determined that none of the three continuous trauma applications were barred by "any statute of limitations." (F&O, Joint Finding of Fact No. 1.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's original decision did not clearly identify the specific statutes at issue or the date of injury under section 5412.
Favours neutral
This lack of clarity prevented a proper determination of whether the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, necessitating reconsideration and remand.
From the decision · page 4ECIC contends that the statute of limitations bars compensation herein. (Petition, at 2:5.) However, it is not clear from the record which statutory time limitations are at issue. The WCJ is required to issue a decision that complies with Labor Code section 5313. An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision, and the WCJ shall "...make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy[.]" (Lab. Code, § 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 [2001 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 4947] (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Hamilton).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at 475.) The purpose of this requirement is to enable "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [to] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]" (Hamilton, supra, at 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350].)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473
The WCJ is required to issue a decision that complies with Labor Code section 5313, making and filing findings upon all facts involved in the controversy to enable parties and the Board to ascertain the basis for the decision.
The WCJ's original decision lacked clarity on the specific statutes at issue and the date of injury, necessitating reconsideration and remand.
From the decision · page 4ECIC contends that the statute of limitations bars compensation herein. (Petition, at 2:5.) However, it is not clear from the record which statutory time limitations are at issue. The WCJ is required to issue a decision that complies with Labor Code section 5313. An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision, and the WCJ shall "...make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy[.]" (Lab. Code, § 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 [2001 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 4947] (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Hamilton).) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at 475.) The purpose of this requirement is to enable "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [to] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]" (Hamilton, supra, at 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350].)
McDaniel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1011
The statute of limitations provisions vary depending on the situation; the WCJ must identify the specific statutory basis for the assertion that compensation is barred due to time limitations.
The lack of clear identification of the specific statutes at issue led to an inconsistent record and necessitated remand for clarification.
From the decision · page 4Here, in ADJ10390527 (CT ending June 29, 2002), the parties have placed in issue the "statute of limitations," generally, without making reference to a specific statute. (August 17, 2020 Minutes, at 3:20.) In ADJ10256080 (CT ending December 18, 2014) and ADJ10256081 (CT ending April 22, 2010), the parties have placed in issue the statute of limitations generally, with further notation that the court is asked to address sections 5412 and 5405. (Id. at 5:3; 6:8.) However, "[i]n California, the statutes of limitation consist of several provisions with varying limits of time depending on the particular situation." (McDaniel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1016 [55 Cal. Comp. Cases 72].)
Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726
Failure to provide required notice regarding rights to file a claim and associated time limits tolls the statute of limitations under Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726.
The WCJ's original decision applied tolling due to failure of notice but did not address all relevant statutes or the date of injury under section 5412.
From the decision · page 3The WCJ issued the F&O on January 7, 2022, finding in pertinent part that "the statutes of limitations" were tolled until the applicant was advised of the statutory deadlines for filing a claim under Reynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 726, 729 [39 Cal. Comp. Cases 768]. The opinion further determined that no claim form was ever provided to applicant by his employer. Accordingly, the WCJ determined that none of the three continuous trauma applications were barred by "any statute of limitations." (F&O, Joint Finding of Fact No. 1.)
Labor Code section 5412; J. T. Thorp v. WCAB (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 327
The date of injury for cumulative trauma claims is governed by Labor Code section 5412, which defines the date as the time of compensable disability and knowledge of work-relatedness.
The WCJ must determine the date of injury under section 5412 to assess if claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
From the decision · page 7In cases involving an alleged cumulative trauma injury, the date of injury is governed by Labor Code section 5412, which holds:
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.