What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's first knowledge of industrial nature of bilateral knee injury and disability was the February 18, 2021 PQME report by Dr. Scott Graham.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established the start date for the statute of limitations, making the continuous trauma claim timely.
From the decision · page 7Since applicant's first knowledge of the industrial nature of his bilateral
knees coupled with disability in the form of temporary disability was the
February 18, 2021 report of PQME Scott Graham, M.D., the claim filed on
October 5, 2020 was timely and is not barred by the statute of limitations.
Applicant testified credibly that Dr. Graham was the first doctor to advise him his bilateral knee condition was industrially related and provided for temporary disability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports the finding that applicant did not have prior knowledge of industrial injury, favoring timeliness of claim.
From the decision · page 13Here, applicant testified that, although he had sought treatment for knee injuries and had
discussed his job duties with his treating physician, the first doctor to advise that his bilateral knee
condition was industrially related was Dr. Graham, in his capacity as PQME. (Minutes of Hearing
and Summary of Evidence, July 8, 2021, p. 4:1-21; Report on defendant's Petition, p. 2.) The
WCJ determined that this testimony was credible, a determination which we accord great weight
because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe applicant's demeanor at trial. (Report on
defendant's Petition, p. 2; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 319 [35
Cal.Comp.Cases 500, 505]; Sheffield Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Perez)
(1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 868 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 358].)
Defendant failed to prove applicant had knowledge of industrial nature of injury prior to Dr. Graham's report.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports the conclusion that the statute of limitations did not bar the claim.
From the decision · page 7Defendant has failed to meet their burden of proof to show applicant had
knowledge of the industrial nature of his injuries coupled with disability,
prior to the reporting of PQME Scott Graham, M.D.
(Report, pp. 2-3.)
WCJ did not provide sufficient reasons or grounds for finding applicant established a prima facie discrimination claim under Labor Code section 132a.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Required remand for further proceedings to develop the record on discrimination claim and business necessities defense.
From the decision · page 12In this case, pursuant to the discussion above, we are unable to ascertain the reasons or
grounds upon which the WCJ determined in the Report that applicant presented evidence sufficient
to prove his prima facie claim. We note, moreover, that a record of the grounds for such a decision
is necessary not only for our review, but for defendant to present its business necessities defense,
as appropriate. We therefore conclude that the WCJ should develop the record on the issue of
whether and on what grounds applicant has established a prima facie case that defendant
discriminated against him in violation of section 132a, and other issues such as whether the
business necessities defense applies or constitutes a mere pretext for adverse treatment, as
appropriate. Accordingly, we will rescind the F&A in case number ADJ10738865 and return the
matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.