What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant was denied by the WCAB panel after review of the WCJ report, which was adopted and incorporated.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 18, 2024.
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 prove employer had notice of injury prior to termination, which is required to overcome the post termination defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was terminated on December 9, 2016, and filed claim on February 7, 2018, after termination.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This timing triggers the post termination defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10).
Applicant did not prove employer had notice of injury prior to termination.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Employer's lack of notice means compensability is barred under the post termination defense.
From the decision · page 4Given the testimony of all the witness, which the WCJ found credible, we are persuaded that applicant did not prove that the employer had notice of the injury prior to notice of termination.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291
The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment by a preponderance of the evidence.
Applicant met initial burden by credible testimony of injury.
From the decision · page 3The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) Applicant did this by credibly testifying that she fell while going down the stairs while taking out the trash around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 12/6/22, at p. 4:1-7.)
Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)
Compensability is barred if claim is filed after notice of termination unless employer had prior notice of injury.
Defendant proved termination date and claim filing date; applicant failed to prove employer had prior notice of injury.
From the decision · page 3...[W]here the claim for compensation is filed after notice of termination or layoff, including voluntary layoff, and the claim is for an injury occurring prior to the time of notice of termination or layoff, no compensation shall be paid unless the employee demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the following conditions apply:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
From the decision · page 2We now turn to the merits and begin by noting that the WCJ found all the witnesses to be credible. We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)
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.