CJS Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

Opinion

DAVIS, J.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) granted reconsideration and reversed the decision of its hearing officer, concluding the compensation claim of applicant Gary Fong was not barred for failure to satisfy the conditions of compensation in Labor Code section 3600 (undesignated section references are to this code). The petitioners (employer CJS Company and insurer California Indemnity Insurance) sought a writ of review of the Board’s decision on this narrow legal issue. We issued the writ. After plenary review of the matter, we shall affirm the decision.

Background

The pertinent facts are few and undisputed. While driving a truck in the course of his employment in August 1996, applicant Fong crashed into a

[296]

truck stopped in front of him in rush-hour traffic. He reported the accident to his employer. Applicant Fong quit his employment in September 1996. He filed an application for benefits in June 1997, alleging for the first time an industrial injury to his back from the August 1996 accident.

The hearing officer did not find the applicant to be a credible witness regarding the accident or the industrial nature of his injuries. However, the hearing officer denied benefits solely by authority of subdivision (a)(10) of section 3600, which provides in pertinent part, “[W]here the claim for compensation is filed after notice of termination or layoff [“the notice”],

including voluntary layoff,

and the claim is for an injury occurring prior to the time of [the] notice . . . , no compensation shall be paid unless the employee demonstrates ... (A) The employer [knew] ... of the injury . . . prior to the notice ...[;] (B) The employee’s medical records, existing prior to the notice . . . , contain evidence of the injury[;] (C) The date of injury ... is subsequent to the date of the notice . . . , but prior to the effective date of the termination or layoff[; or] (D) the date of injury [from an occupational disease or cumulative injury] ... is subsequent to the date of the notice . . . .” (Italics added, paragraphing deleted.)