WCAB: Timely Re-Open Petition Does not Allow Post-5-year Comp. Cons.
Happy Monday, dear readers!
Your humble blogger is back to pollute your in-boxes once more! Did you miss me?
As alluded to a time or two before on this blog, your humble blogger was a big fan of Star Wars. What I have learned applies equally to Star Wars and Workers’ Comp – nothing good can come from revisiting a settled matter.
The original Star Wars movies were great – but it’s been downhill ever since George Lucas decided he had to reopen the books. Like a child on Christmas morning unable to stop tinkering with his new toy until he breaks it, Hollywood gave us Star Wars movie after Star Wars movie until all the joy was stolen from the franchise. Help us Kurosawa – you’re our only hope!
The point is, of course, that things once settled should stay settled.
But then, of course, the Labor Code gives applicants the right to petition to reopen their claims for “new and further disability.” Just like your humble blogger’s enjoyment of Star Wars was poisoned by too many sequels, so too can a petition to reopen steal the satisfaction of a resolution by stips in a workers’ comp claim.
One recent case touching on this is a writ denied decision from July of 2018, Miguel Villa v. WCAB. Applicant filed a petition to reopen for new and further disability pertaining to his lumbar spine within 5 years of his date of injury of in 1990, and then amended the application to include psyche in 2006.
The defendant naturally started scratching its proverbial head – how can a petition to reopen a 1990 injury filed in 1994 be amended in 2006 to address psyche?
Well, the answer is that it shouldn’t, and, more importantly, it can’t!
After all, despite our beloved workers’ compensation system being given to flights of fancy and a whimsical interpretation of what may generally be referred to as “rules,” it’s not total fantasy!
The WCJ, in recommending petition be denied and the finding that the claim for a psyche injury was made beyond the five-year mark and was thus barred by statute, framed the issue as follows: “whether there is jurisdiction to award new and further disability indemnity related to compensable consequence injuries which arose after the five-year period and after Petitioner’s new and further spinal disability had reached permanent and stationary status, despite the timely filing of a Petition to Reopen.”
The WCJ cited Beck v. WCAB (65 CCC 845), a writ denied case from 2000, for the proposition that new and further disability must already exist prior to the 5-year mark. The case of Hartsuiker v. WCAB, a 1993 decision, was also cited to reject the suggestion that merely filing a petition to reopen nullifies the 5-year limit on the WCAB’s jurisdiction.
The panel denied applicant’s petition and adopted and incorporated the WCJ’s recommendation.