court really does not differentiate the
two cases but implies that it has to do
with the applicant's ability to amend
the claim years earlier. This court
merely indicates that for these facts the
defendant had sufficient knowledge of
the details.
you should look at the facts of both of
these cases and compare them to your
own facts. The most prudent course of
action is to prepare and defend any
potential claim as a defendant. This is a
good example of better to be safe than
sorry from a defendant's perspective.
specific injury. The applicant failed to
prove a specific injury, but showed
there was a cumulative trauma. The
appellate court indicated that was
sufficient even though no claim form
was ever filed for a cumulative
trauma.
(WCJ) found there was no injury once
all of the medical evidence indicated
that there was a cumulative trauma and
not a specific.
indicating that the defendant in this
situation was never mislead.
Approximately one week after the
reporting of the specific injury the
defendant was aware that the applicant
was suffering a cumulative trauma from
repetitive activities. Since the defendant
had knowledge they could not be
prejudiced by the misstatement as to the
date of injury.
the 90-day presumption under Labor
Code section 5402. The court found
that the presumption did apply under
these facts since the defendant had
notice of the cumulative nature of the
applicant's injury 8 days after he
reported the specific injury.
the Crawford v. WCAB (54 CCC 411)
(1989) case. In that case the applicant
was not allowed to amend his claim on
the date of trial from a cumulative
for a specific injury on August 8,1994
for injury to the left wrist. A doctor
told the applicant he had carpal tunnel
syndrome and should not work. The
claim was not denied and temporary
disability was paid.
attorney and filed an application for
adjudication alleging a back and left
upper extremity injury. An amended
application indicated the date of injury
as August 8, 1994, but indicated that
the injury was due to constant writing
BECKSTEAD V. WCAB ............... 1
Firm: SAMUELSEN, GONZALEZ,
VALENZUELA AND SORKOW
Address: 350 WEST 5TH ST. #105
SAN PEDRO, CA 90731
Click here for printable version