What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant filed a verified petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Orders issued by the WCJ on February 3, 2026, which the WCAB panel denied on May 18, 2026.
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 applicant's credible testimony that he reported injury to his manager and was unaware of workers' compensation rights, tolling the statute of limitations due to employer's failure to notify and provide claim form; defendant failed to prove affirmative defenses of statute of limitations and laches; PQME Dr. Mirzayan's report was stricken as untimely, leaving insufficient medical evidence, requiring further development of the record.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 3, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, back, arms, and shoulders, while employed as a sales representative during the period from March 15, 2008 to December 18, 2009. The WCJ further found that the applicant's claim is not barred by the statutes of limitations; the claim is not barred by laches; the reporting of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Raffy Mirzayan, M.D., was not timely served; defendant formally objected to the timeliness of Dr. Mirzayan's report prior to the service of that report; the reporting of Dr. Mirzayan has been stricken from the record, the court lacks sufficient credible medical evidence to adjudicate injury AOE/COE; and the record needs to be further developed in order to adjudicate injury AOE/COE.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant credibly testified he reported injury to his manager and was unaware of workers' compensation rights.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This testimony supported tolling the statute of limitations due to employer's failure to notify and provide claim form, favoring applicant's claim.
From the decision · page 4As to the Statute of Limitations defense, applicant credibly testified that he reported some of his physical complaints to his manager, that the employer did not inform him of his workers' compensation rights, and that he was unaware of the ability to file a cumulative trauma claim until he heard his attorney's radio advertisement years after the fact. Defendant introduced no evidence in rebuttal of these points.
Defendant failed to present evidence to prove affirmative defenses of statute of limitations and laches.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of evidence led to rejection of defendant's defenses, favoring applicant's claim.
From the decision · page 6As noted by the WCJ in the Report, defendant presented no evidence to establish either affirmative defense. A decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 280-81 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310].) A decision "must be based on admitted evidence
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.
Report was not timely served and was stricken from the record, leaving insufficient medical evidence to adjudicate injury AOE/COE.
Report was untimely served and stricken from the record, as found by the WCJ.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 3, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, back, arms, and shoulders, while employed as a sales representative during the period from March 15, 2008 to December 18, 2009. The WCJ further found that the applicant's claim is not barred by the statutes of limitations; the claim is not barred by laches; the reporting of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Raffy Mirzayan, M.D., was not timely served; defendant formally objected to the timeliness of Dr. Mirzayan's report prior to the service of that report; the reporting of Dr. Mirzayan has been stricken from the record, the court lacks sufficient credible medical evidence to adjudicate injury AOE/COE; and the record needs to be further developed in order to adjudicate injury AOE/COE.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Kaiser Found. Hosps. Permanente Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Martin) (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57
Statute of limitations tolled when employer fails to notify injured employee of workers' compensation rights by providing claim form and notice of potential eligibility of benefits.
Applied to toll statute of limitations due to employer's failure to notify applicant after injury report.
From the decision · page 6is tolled if the employer failed to notify the injured employee of a potential right to workers' compensation benefits by providing the claim form (DWC-1 form) and notice of potential eligibility of benefits required under section 5401. (Kaiser Found. Hosps. Permanente Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Martin) (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57, 60 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411].) An employer's obligation to provide a claim form arises when the employer receives written notice of an injury or obtains knowledge of the injury. (Lab. Code § 5400, 5402.) Section 5402, subdivision (a) explains that "Knowledge of an injury, obtained from any source, on the part of an employer, the employer's managing agent, superintendent, foreman, or other person in authority, or knowledge of the assertion of a claim of injury sufficient to afford opportunity to the employer to make an investigation into the facts, is equivalent to service under Section 5400." (Lab. Code § 5402(a).) As noted by the WCJ, applicant testified at trial that he reported his injury to his manager (MOH/SOE, at p. 7:4-5) and that his employer did not inform him of his workers' compensation rights. (MOH/SOE, at p. 5:24.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony that he reported injury to his manager and was unaware of workers' compensation rights, tolling the statute of limitations due to employer's failure to notify and provide claim form.
From the decision · page 4As to the Statute of Limitations defense, applicant credibly testified that he reported some of his physical complaints to his manager, that the employer did not inform him of his workers' compensation rights, and that he was unaware of the ability to file a cumulative trauma claim until he heard his attorney's radio advertisement years after the fact. Defendant introduced no evidence in rebuttal of these points.
Defendant presented no evidence to prove affirmative defenses of statute of limitations and laches.
From the decision · page 6As noted by the WCJ in the Report, defendant presented no evidence to establish either affirmative defense. A decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 280-81 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310].) A decision "must be based on admitted evidence
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.