County of Riverside v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
10 Cal. App. 5th 119
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Petitioner County of Riverside employed Peter G. Sylves as a deputy sheriff from 1998–2010; Sylves then worked for the Pauma Police Department (a tribal employer) from December 2010–July 2014.
- Sylves filed a workers’ compensation application on July 16, 2014, alleging continuous-trauma injuries (hypertension, GERD, left shoulder, low back, both knees, sleep disorder).
- A WCJ found some conditions compensable (hypertension and back) and limited continuous-trauma exposure to the last year per Labor Code §5500.5, but later the WCAB on reconsideration found additional conditions compensable and held Sylves’s claim timely.
- WCAB concluded the limitations period began when doctors confirmed industrial causation (medical confirmation occurred in 2013), so the 2014 filing was timely under §§5412 and 5405.
- WCAB also held §5500.5(a) governs apportionment/liability among employers (not the filing limitations) and that it could not limit liability to the Pauma Police Department because the WCAB lacks jurisdiction over federally recognized tribes; therefore liability was imposed on the County.
- The County petitioned for writ review arguing untimeliness and misapplication of §5500.5(a); the Court of Appeal affirmed the WCAB decision and denied attorney fees under §5801.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (County) | Defendant's Argument (Sylves) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of claim under §§5412/5405 | Sylves knew or should have known of industrial causation earlier; filing was outside the one-year limit | Limitations begin when a doctor confirms work-related causation; medical confirmation occurred in 2013, so 2014 filing is timely | WCAB determination that claim was timely is supported by substantial evidence; limitations begin upon medical confirmation under §5412 |
| Effect of §5500.5(a) on who may be held liable | §5500.5(a) limits liability to employers in the last year of exposure, so liability should be assigned to Pauma Police Department (last employer) | §5500.5(a) addresses apportionment/liability among employers, not filing limitations; WCAB cannot assert jurisdiction over the tribal employer, so liability may be imposed on insured prior employer (County) | §5500.5(a) does not govern the limitations period; because the tribal employer is not subject to WCAB jurisdiction/coverage, liability properly imposed on the County under §5500.5(a) fallback language |
| Attorney fees under §5801 | County contends petition was reasonable | Sylves sought fees arguing petition was baseless | Court declined to award fees: petition was reasonable enough (novel statutory question) and not frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Colonial Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 29 Cal.2d 79 (recognizing employee may obtain full award against one or more successive employers and allowing apportionment/contribution)
- Tidewater Oil Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 67 Cal.App.3d 950 (explaining purpose and historical development of limiting employer liability under §5500.5)
- Western Growers Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 16 Cal.App.4th 227 (standard of review for WCAB factual findings and appellate scope)
- Chambers v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 69 Cal.2d 556 (burden on employer to prove untimely filing)
- City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 163 Cal.App.3d 467 (limitations and knowledge: employer must prove employee knew causation absent medical advice)
- Middletown Rancheria v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 60 Cal.App.4th 1340 (WCAB lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over federally recognized tribes)