What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted the Petition for Reconsideration, amended the Findings of Fact, Order & Award to reflect a July 18, 2017 date of injury, and otherwise affirmed the decision.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact, Order & Award issued February 7, 2024, challenging the date of injury determination; the WCJ rescinded the original decision and held a further hearing, but reaffirmed the original date of injury; the WCAB granted reconsideration and issued a decision after reconsideration.
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 WCAB found that the July 18, 2017 QME report established disability and knowledge of industrial causation, satisfying section 5412 requirements, and that the WCJ erred in fixing the date of injury as February 18, 2020 based on section 5500.5 which governs liability, not date of injury.
From the decision · page 3Here, we agree with applicant that the WCJ erred in finding the date of injury to be February 18, 2020. Section 5412 requires proof of two elements: disability, and the injured worker's knowledge that the disability was related to the injury. The QME Report of July 18, 2017 finds that applicant sustained a "5% whole person impairment to the left wrist." (Ex. 1, at p. 22.) With regard to causation, the same report states: "Regarding his bilateral hands and wrists... it is my opinion, with reasonable medical probability, that the applicant's duties as a plumber were sufficient repetitive... to have caused an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment[.]" (Id., at p. 21.) In our view, these findings are sufficient to establish a July 18, 2017 date of injury pursuant to section 5412.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The July 18, 2017 QME report found a 5% whole person impairment to the left wrist and opined the injury was caused by repetitive duties as a plumber.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established disability and knowledge of industrial causation as required by Labor Code section 5412 to fix the date of injury.
From the decision · page 3Here, we agree with applicant that the WCJ erred in finding the date of injury to be February 18, 2020. Section 5412 requires proof of two elements: disability, and the injured worker's knowledge that the disability was related to the injury. The QME Report of July 18, 2017 finds that applicant sustained a "5% whole person impairment to the left wrist." (Ex. 1, at p. 22.) With regard to causation, the same report states: "Regarding his bilateral hands and wrists... it is my opinion, with reasonable medical probability, that the applicant's duties as a plumber were sufficient repetitive... to have caused an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment[.]" (Id., at p. 21.) In our view, these findings are sufficient to establish a July 18, 2017 date of injury pursuant to section 5412.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5412
Section 5412 sets the date of injury as the date the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related.
The WCAB applied section 5412 to determine the correct date of injury based on disability and knowledge.
From the decision · page 2DISCUSSION For cumulative trauma injures, section 5412 sets the date of injury as "that date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment." Whether an employee knew or should have known the employee's disability was industrially related is generally a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact, i.e., the WCJ. (Chambers v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 556 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 722]; City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 467 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 53]; Nielsen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 918 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 104].) If the WCJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence, including reasonable inferences from
Labor Code section 5500.5
Section 5500.5 limits liability to employers during a one-year period preceding the date of injury or last exposure.
The WCAB noted section 5500.5 governs liability and does not directly impact the date of injury determination.
From the decision · page 3Section 5500.5, subdivision (a), meanwhile, limits liability for cumulative trauma injury claims filed after January 1, 1981 to "those employers who employed the employee during a period" of one year "immediately preceding either the date of injury, as determined pursuant to Section 5412, or the last date on which the employee was employed in an occupation exposing him or her to the hazards of the occupational disease or cumulative injury, whichever occurs first." (§ 5550.5(a) (emphasis added).)
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.