What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted to amend date of cumulative injury to October 13, 2020, and applicant's age to 59; otherwise, Finding and Award of September 24, 2025 affirmed.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Finding of Fact, Award, Order issued on September 24, 2025, which found applicant's cumulative injury claim not barred by statute of limitations; WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration; WCAB granted reconsideration to amend date of injury and age, otherwise affirmed F&A.
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 Appeals Board found that the proper date of injury under section 5412 is October 13, 2020, when both parties had knowledge of the cumulative injury, and that defendant failed to meet its duty to notify applicant, tolling the statute of limitations and preventing the claim from being barred.
From the decision · page 8Based on our review, we agree with the WCJ that the record contains substantial medical evidence that applicant sustained a cumulative injury AOE/COE to his right foot/ankle, left foot/ankle, lumbar spine, right hip and left hip. However, October 13, 2020, when both parties had knowledge that there was substantial medical evidence of cumulative injury, is the proper date of injury pursuant to section 5412, and whether the statute of limitations had elapsed pursuant to section 5405(a) is based on that date of injury. Defendant is mistaken where it contends that only applicant had knowledge on that date. Applicant proved defendant had knowledge of his injury based on the reporting of Dr. McGahan addressed to both parties as early as October 13, 2020 or as late as May 26, 2021, when defendant deposed Dr. McGahan, either event being sufficient to trigger defendant's duty of notification, thereby tolling the statute of limitations. (See Exhibits 3 and 9.) There is no evidence in the record that defendant met its duty of notification to applicant. Thus, we also agree with the WCJ that defendant did not meet its burden, and applicant's injury claim is not barred by the statute of limitations defense.