Reynolds v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

Petitioner seeks review and annulment of an opinion and decision after reconsideration of respondent Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board (hereinafter referred to as “the board”) holding that his claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Facts:

On February 20, 1968, around 10 or 10:15 a.m., petitioner, who was well when he started to work that day, began to experience pain in his chest and left arm while loading heavy timbers onto a truck in the course of his employment with respondent Pacific Gas and Electric Company (hereinafter referred to as “PG&E”). He requested assistance with the loading, but none was available; so he continued doing the work alone. Later, in the afternoon, when he arrived at his destination, he experienced further, more severe pain when he began to unload the timbers from the truck. Again he requested assistance, but none was provided. He completed the work and then informed his supervisor that he felt sick and was going home. While discussing his condition with his supervisor, petitioner started to shake; and he expressed the opinion that he was having a heart attack. He was advised to sit down. He then began to perspire, and he lay down

[728]

on a bench. His supervisor requested someone in the office to call an ambulance to take petitioner to, the hospital. An ambulance arrived, and petitioner’s supervisor followed it to the hospital, where the diagnosis of a heart attack (myocardial infarction) was, to the knowledge of the supervisor, confirmed. ;

Petitioner did not work for approximately a year after his heart attack. During that time, he received unemployment disability compensation from Pacific Service Employees Benefit Association under a private, voluntary plan for employees of PG&E, to which plan PG&E did not contribute. Petitioner paid for all his medical expenses, including the cost of the ambulance and the emergency treatment.

In late December 1970, nearly three years after his heart attack, one of petitioner’s relatives suggested to him that he might be entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits. This idea had apparently not occurred to petitioner.

1