ADJ20023103 · December 23, 2025

The WCJ failed to make findings on the date of injury and industrial causation was not supported by competent expert evidence; the record requires further development on these issues.

From the decision · page 1Defendant Technology Insurance Company seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award1 of September 19, 2025, wherein it was found that "[while] employed during the period of October 1, 2023 to October 1, 2024, as a Lumper, occupational group number deferred, by TW Services, Inc., [applicant] sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to abdomen, groin and hernia." It was also found that applicant's claim was not barred as a post-termination claim pursuant to Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) and that the "applicant is not barred from benefits per Labor Code section 3700."

Absence of competent expert evidence on industrial causation and date of injury

Favours Defendant prevailed

Required further development of the record and analysis, leading to rescission and remand.

From the decision · page 3Although we appreciate that applicant worked a physically demanding job and that lay understanding of hernias is that they are precipitated by physical stress, a finding of an industrially caused cumulative injury in this matter must be based on competent expert evidence.

Labor Code section 5909

Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of case transmission to Appeals Board (Lab. Code, 5909)

The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition within 60 days of transmission on October 24, 2025.

From the decision · page 2Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

Labor Code section 5412

Date of injury in cumulative injury cases is when employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related (Lab. Code, 5412)

The WCJ failed to establish the date of injury as required by Labor Code section 5412.

From the decision · page 4Additionally, in order to ascribe liability to the correct carriers and/or employers, the liability period of the cumulative injury must be established pursuant to Labor Code section 5500.5. Labor Code section 5500.5(a) states, "liability for occupational disease or cumulative injury claims... shall be limited 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." Thus, in order to evaluate the section 5500.5 liability period, a history must be taken to detail any periods of industrial exposure. Additionally, since the section 5500.5 period is based on the earlier of the cessation of industrial exposure and the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury, the section 5412 date of injury must be established.

Labor Code section 5500.5

Liability period for cumulative injury claims limited to employers during one year preceding date of injury or last exposure (Lab. Code, 5500.5)

The WCJ did not establish the liability period under Labor Code section 5500.5 due to lack of findings on exposure and date of injury.

From the decision · page 4Additionally, in order to ascribe liability to the correct carriers and/or employers, the liability period of the cumulative injury must be established pursuant to Labor Code section 5500.5. Labor Code section 5500.5(a) states, "liability for occupational disease or cumulative injury claims... shall be limited 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." Thus, in order to evaluate the section 5500.5 liability period, a history must be taken to detail any periods of industrial exposure. Additionally, since the section 5500.5 period is based on the earlier of the cessation of industrial exposure and the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury, the section 5412 date of injury must be established.

Applicant's testimony and hospital records documenting surgery for hernias without expert causation evidence

From the decision · page 3Turning to the merits, the decision in this case was based on the applicant's testimony at trial and on January 2021 hospital records documenting surgery for a hiatal hernia and a left inguinal hernia. Applicant testified at trial that his job duties included unloading items from trailers and trucks onto a pallet and that he would sometimes have to lift items up to 80 pounds. He testified that he would unload up to 60 trucks per day. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of July 23, 2025 trial.) However, besides testifying that he underwent surgery in 2020 or 2021, which was when he first sought treatment, and that he was experiencing symptoms for eight to ten months before seeking treatment, applicant did not offer any specifics as to when he experienced injurious exposure, or the extent that this continued after his surgery.