What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review.
Defendant IGF filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the January 27, 2021 Findings and Award. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review of the merits of the Petition and the entire record.
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 issue of whether there is one or two cumulative trauma injuries and the date of injury require further study, so final decision is deferred.
From the decision · page 7While we agree that the WCJ properly found that applicant had sustained injury AOE/COE but based on the record before us, the issue of whether there is one or two cumulative trauma injuries requires further study. Moreover, the issue of the date of injury pursuant to section 5412 also requires further study because determination of the date requires that the issue of whether there was one or two periods of cumulative trauma be determined.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained cumulative trauma injuries to cervical, thoracic, and lumbosacral spine during employment with International Garment Finish and Magic Laundry Services.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact is central to determining the date of injury and apportionment issues under Labor Code sections 5412 and 5500.5.
From the decision · page 2I. Preliminarily, we note the following in our review. Applicant claimed injury to his neck, back, both upper extremities, both lower extremities, both knees, and both ankles while employed by IGF as a laborer during the period from January 1, 1999, through April 27, 2014 (ADJ9566360). Applicant also claimed injury to his neck, left shoulder, bilateral arms, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral fingers, back, bilateral legs, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles and bilateral feet, while employed by Avitus as a laborer during the period from August 8, 2014, through December 7, 2015 (ADJ11255137). Orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Steven W. Meier, M.D., evaluated applicant on June 15, 2017. Dr. Meier examined applicant, took a history, and reviewed the medical record. In his report the doctor noted that applicant said he had worked for "International Garments Inc." [International Garment Finish (IGF)] as a laundry sorter during the period from 1999 through April of 2014, and that he worked as a laundry sorter for "Maggie Laundromat" [Magic Laundry Services, Inc.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Dr. Meier found no evidence of industrial continuous trauma during employment at International Garment Finish but found work duties at Magic Laundry Services contributed to claimed injuries. He apportioned impairment: 50% due to DISH/degenerative disc disease, 45% due to trauma at International Garment Finish, and 5% due to trauma at Magic Laundry Services.
Dr. Meier's medical reports and apportionment opinion were considered in the case.
From the decision · page 2I. Preliminarily, we note the following in our review. Applicant claimed injury to his neck, back, both upper extremities, both lower extremities, both knees, and both ankles while employed by IGF as a laborer during the period from January 1, 1999, through April 27, 2014 (ADJ9566360). Applicant also claimed injury to his neck, left shoulder, bilateral arms, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral fingers, back, bilateral legs, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles and bilateral feet, while employed by Avitus as a laborer during the period from August 8, 2014, through December 7, 2015 (ADJ11255137). Orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Steven W. Meier, M.D., evaluated applicant on June 15, 2017. Dr. Meier examined applicant, took a history, and reviewed the medical record. In his report the doctor noted that applicant said he had worked for "International Garments Inc." [International Garment Finish (IGF)] as a laundry sorter during the period from 1999 through April of 2014, and that he worked as a laundry sorter for "Maggie Laundromat" [Magic Laundry Services, Inc.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5500.5
Labor Code section 5500.5 limits liability to employers during the one year preceding the date of injury or last exposure to hazards.
Defendant IGF's argument about date of injury based on last exposure requires further study.
From the decision · page 7Section 5500.5 states in pertinent part that liability for occupational disease or cumulative injury claims filed or asserted on or after January 1, 1981, shall be limited to those employers who employed the injured worker 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 them to the hazards of the occupational disease or cumulative injury, whichever occurs first. (Lab. Code, § 5500.5(a).)
Labor Code section 5412
Labor Code section 5412 defines the date of injury for cumulative injuries as the date the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was caused by employment.
The date of injury determination requires further study due to unresolved issues about cumulative trauma periods.
From the decision · page 6"The date of injury in cases of occupational diseases or cumulative injuries is 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." (Lab. Code, § 5412.) Whether an employee knew or should have known his disability was industrially caused is a question of fact. (City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 467, 471 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 53] (Johnson); Nielsen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 918, 927 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 104]; Chambers v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 556, 559 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 722].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony and medical reports including Dr. Meier's evaluations
From the decision · page 2I. Preliminarily, we note the following in our review. Applicant claimed injury to his neck, back, both upper extremities, both lower extremities, both knees, and both ankles while employed by IGF as a laborer during the period from January 1, 1999, through April 27, 2014 (ADJ9566360). Applicant also claimed injury to his neck, left shoulder, bilateral arms, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral fingers, back, bilateral legs, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles and bilateral feet, while employed by Avitus as a laborer during the period from August 8, 2014, through December 7, 2015 (ADJ11255137). Orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Steven W. Meier, M.D., evaluated applicant on June 15, 2017. Dr. Meier examined applicant, took a history, and reviewed the medical record. In his report the doctor noted that applicant said he had worked for "International Garments Inc." [International Garment Finish (IGF)] as a laundry sorter during the period from 1999 through April of 2014, and that he worked as a laundry sorter for "Maggie Laundromat" [Magic Laundry Services, Inc.
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.