What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted solely to admit applicant's exhibits 1-15 into evidence; otherwise, the Findings and Order of November 20, 2025, affirmed.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on November 20, 2025, which found defendant failed to prove the claim was barred under Labor Code sections 5400 and 5405 and ordered further record development including additional QME panels.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold August 6, 2025.
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 WCJ found good cause for additional QME panels in orthopedic surgery and psychology to further develop the record on the nature and extent of injury, including whether the injury was an exacerbation or industrial aggravation of a pre-existing condition.
Defendant failed to prove applicant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations because applicant timely filed a Claim Form on September 9, 2022, and reported the injury to her supervisor the day of or day after the injury, satisfying notice requirements.
From the decision · page 8Further, under section 5403, an injured employee's "failure to give notice under section 5400, or any defect or inaccuracy in a notice is not a bar to recovery under this division if it is found as a fact in the proceedings for the collection of the claim that the employer was not in fact misled or prejudiced by such failure." Additionally, any "[l]imitations provisions in the [workers'] compensation law must be liberally construed in favor of the employee unless otherwise compelled by the language of the statute, and such enactments should not be interpreted in a manner which will result in a loss of compensation." (Blanchard v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 590, 595, 40 Cal. Comp. Cases 784, 787 (internal citations omitted).)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
WCJ found good cause for additional QME panels in orthopedic surgery and psychology specialties.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Further medical discovery was necessary to determine the nature and extent of injury, including whether it was an exacerbation or industrial aggravation of a pre-existing condition.
Applicant reported the injury to her supervisor the day of or day after the injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This unrebutted testimony satisfied the notice requirement under Labor Code section 5401, supporting the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.
From the decision · page 8Here, applicant's injury date is March 10, 2021, and per applicant's unrebutted testimony, the injury was first reported to her supervisor, Maria, either the same day, or the day following the injury. (Exhibit C, p. 27:2-12; MOH & SOE, September 4, 2025, p. 8.) Notwithstanding defendant's knowledge, the Claim Form was not provided until September 9, 2022.
Applicant timely filed a Claim Form on September 9, 2022.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Filing the Claim Form tolled the statute of limitations under Labor Code sections 5401 and 5402, making the subsequent Application timely.
From the decision · page 2Prior to the filing of the Application, applicant was provided with and completed a DWC 1 (Claim Form) on September 9, 2022, alleging injury AOE/COE in March of 2021. (Exhibit A.)
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.
Retained as podiatry panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) for applicant's injury.
From the decision · page 4Q: Of 2022? A: Yes.... A: I'm just thinking maybe I filled out that paperwork in September of 2022 because I can't figure out filling no other paper. I can't remember.... A:...I had to go to meetings in August of 2022 before school started, and then when I went in to give them my paperwork to get my keys to work in August of '22, they told me, "You can't work with a boot on." And I got a phone call saying go to Irwindale Clinic 9/9 and then 9/16. Q: And that's 2022? A: Yes, sir. Q: Do you recall having been given any workers' compensation paperwork by the District at any time before that? A: I can't remember that. Q: Were you provided with any paperwork after your conversation with the supervisor the day after the injury occurred? A: No. No paperwork. No nothing. Q: After you spoke with the supervisor--Maria? Is that correct? A: Yes. Q: Did you speak with anyone else? A: No. (Exhibit C, pp. 27:2-22, 31:17-35:16.) Applicant ultimately sought treatment for her injury, and the parties retained William McCarron, M.D., and later, Tiffany Chin, M.D., as the podiatry panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5401; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10138 et seq.; Honeywell v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wagner) (2005) 35 Cal.4th 24
An employer must provide a Claim Form within one working day of receiving written notice or knowledge of an injury causing lost time or medical treatment beyond first aid, per Labor Code section 5401 and A.D. Rule 10138 et seq.
The employer's duty to provide the Claim Form tolls the statute of limitations until the claim is denied or presumed compensable.
From the decision · page 8Pursuant to section 5401 and A.D. Rule 10138 et seq., within one working day from when an employer receives written notice or knowledge of an injury caused by employment or knowledge of an assertion of an injury claim resulting in lost time from work beyond the employee's shift or medical treatment beyond first aid, the employer is required to provide the employee personally, or by first class mail, the Claim Form and a Notice of Potential Eligibility for benefits. (Lab. Code, § 5401; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10138 et seq.; Wagner, supra, at p. 32.)
Labor Code sections 5701, 5906; McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389; McDonald v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., TLG Med. Prods. (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 797; Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396; McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2001) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138; A.D. Rule 31.7(a) and (b)
The WCJ and Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on a threshold issue, per Labor Code sections 5701 and 5906 and case law.
The WCJ found good cause for additional QME panels to develop the record on the nature and extent of injury.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's unrebutted testimony that she reported the injury to her supervisor the day of or day after the injury.
From the decision · page 8Here, applicant's injury date is March 10, 2021, and per applicant's unrebutted testimony, the injury was first reported to her supervisor, Maria, either the same day, or the day following the injury. (Exhibit C, p. 27:2-12; MOH & SOE, September 4, 2025, p. 8.) Notwithstanding defendant's knowledge, the Claim Form was not provided until September 9, 2022.
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.