ADJ8627591 · November 7, 2025

The WCAB found that the decedent's death was industrially related based on medical evidence from QME Dr. Schmitz and that the claim was timely filed under Labor Code section 5412, as the date of injury for cumulative injury claims is the date the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related. Defendant failed to prove the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

From the decision · page 2FACTS Decedent applicant died on May 22, 2021, due to heart failure with cardiomyopathy. (Applicant's Exhibit 1, Death Certificate, June 10, 2021.) Decedent had an underlying claim of cumulative injury to multiple body parts, including his feet and hypertension, during an injurious exposure period ending on May 3, 2012. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), June 4, 2025, p. 2, lines 4-8.) Qualified medical evaluator (QME) James Schmitz, M.D., evaluated applicant's death and authored two reports in evidence. (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2.) Dr. Schmitz took a history of injury, in pertinent part, as follows:

Decedent died on May 22, 2021, due to heart failure with cardiomyopathy, which was found to have an industrial component.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact established industrial causation of death supporting the applicant's claim.

From the decision · page 2FACTS Decedent applicant died on May 22, 2021, due to heart failure with cardiomyopathy. (Applicant's Exhibit 1, Death Certificate, June 10, 2021.) Decedent had an underlying claim of cumulative injury to multiple body parts, including his feet and hypertension, during an injurious exposure period ending on May 3, 2012. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), June 4, 2025, p. 2, lines 4-8.) Qualified medical evaluator (QME) James Schmitz, M.D., evaluated applicant's death and authored two reports in evidence. (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2.) Dr. Schmitz took a history of injury, in pertinent part, as follows:

Defendant admitted in their denial letter that no factual or medical documentation existed to establish the death was related to employment.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This admission undermined defendant's statute of limitations defense and supported the timeliness of the claim.

From the decision · page 8Turning to the merits of the case, defendant's own denial of this claim is the opposite of the arguments that it makes on reconsideration. In denying applicant's claim for benefits, defendant declared that "there is no factual or medical documentation that the death was related to employment at Americold." (Defendant's Exhibit 1.) Given this admission by defendant, it is unclear how defendant is able to establish any date of injury pursuant to section 5412, prior to its own denial letter. If no factual or medical documentation existed, applicant could not have the requisite knowledge to establish a date of injury under section 5412.

Dr. Schmitz opined that the decedent's death was industrially related due to industrial aggravation of hypertension and diabetes contributing to ischemic cardiomyopathy and death.

Dr. Schmitz's medical reports and opinion were relied upon by the WCAB to find industrial causation of death.

From the decision · page 2(Joint Exhibit 1, Report of James Schmitz, M.D., October 24, 2023, p. 2.) Dr. Schmitz found applicant's death industrial, commenting:

South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291

Applicant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an injury occurred AOE/COE.

The WCAB applied this standard to find the decedent's death industrially related.

From the decision · page 5II. When applicant claims a physical injury, applicant has the initial burden of proving industrial causation by showing the employment was a contributing cause. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302; § 5705.) Applicant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an injury occurred AOE/COE. (§ 3202.5; 3600(a).)

Labor Code section 5412

The date of injury for cumulative injury claims is the date the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related.

The WCAB applied this to determine the date of injury for the death claim was the date of death, not the last day of work.

From the decision · page 6The injury claimed in this matter is a cumulative injury. Date of injury for cumulative injury claims is ordinarily established under section 5412, which states: "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." (§ 5412.)

Defendant's denial letter admitted no factual or medical documentation existed to establish the death was related to employment, undermining their statute of limitations argument.

From the decision · page 8Turning to the merits of the case, defendant's own denial of this claim is the opposite of the arguments that it makes on reconsideration. In denying applicant's claim for benefits, defendant declared that "there is no factual or medical documentation that the death was related to employment at Americold." (Defendant's Exhibit 1.) Given this admission by defendant, it is unclear how defendant is able to establish any date of injury pursuant to section 5412, prior to its own denial letter. If no factual or medical documentation existed, applicant could not have the requisite knowledge to establish a date of injury under section 5412.