In another unpublished decision, the Fifth District Court of Appeal sent this case back to the WCAB for an award of attorneys fees to the applicant, stating that the defense failed to carry its burden of showing why the worker's claim should have been barred by the statute of limitations.
The employee worked for FedEx since 1997 and began experiencing pain in 2001 but didn't associate it with work at the time. She quit her job after the holiday season in December 2001.
Thereafter, she received benefits - through a long-term disability policy with FedEx - as well as EDD benefits for the next two years. When she discovered her benefits were ending, she filed a workers' compensation claim in 2004.
FedEx argued that the statute of limitations had run and the claim should have been barred.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the WCJ's awarding of benefits on the grounds that if the injury were so obviously work-related that the employee should have known way back in 2001 -- as FedEx claimed, then the employer should have known it was work-related too (the worker had complained to her supervisor about her pain). And that once the employer knew, it should have provided her with information and a claim form regarding her rights to workers' compensation benefits, which it never did!
The ruling basically came down to a burden of proof issue in which the defense, in the Court of Appeal's opinion, failed to present substantial evidence in support of its affirmative defense of the statute of limitations.
[note: There's an obvious typo in the Court's opinion on the first page, where it states that the worker began experiencing pain "following the 2006 holiday rush." Through the context of the recited facts, as well as the fact that the trial was held in April 2006 -- well before the "2006 holiday rush," it's clear that the Court intended to say "following the 2001 holiday rush."]
To read the full opinion,
PLEASE CLICK HERE.*
- Help for the Injured Worker
