 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davenport v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board11/2/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
To conclude the statute of limitations barred Thomas Davenport's claim for benefits, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) jumped from evidence that the petitioner Thomas Davenport spoke with a lawyer to the conclusion that Davenport was "aware that he might have a workers' compensation claim." Because it is undisputed Davenport's employer did not provide him with the statutorily required notice concerning his workers' compensation rights, and the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) failed to meet its burden of proving Davenport knew he might be entitled to benefits under the workers' compensation system, we shall annul the WCAB's order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Davenport worked for Michael Faeth Cleaners in 1997. Faeth had a contract with Camp Pendleton to dry-clean military clothing. During his employment, Davenport lived in a hotel on the base and Faeth paid for Davenport's room and board. Davenport worked for Faeth until the business closed in August or September 1997.
On April 1, 1997, Davenport burned himself while in his hotel room. He was cooking in the kitchen area when a grease fire started. He tried to carry the flaming pan of grease out of his room, but slipped during the attempt. As a result, he burned his arms, hand, and face. A member of the hotel staff called an ambulance that picked Davenport up at the hotel and transported him to the hospital.
The next day, Davenport told Faeth about the circumstances of his injury. Someone from Faeth took him back to Tri-City Hospital because he needed more medical care. When he was admitted to the hospital, he explained the circumstances of his injuries and the hospital admitted him under Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal later denied payment of these bills. Davenport believed that Faeth paid the Tri-City bill.
During his stay at the hospital, Davenport spoke with an attorney who told him he did not have a case. For that reason, Davenport did not pursue a workers' compensation claim nor did he ask the employer to pay his bills.
Faeth also took Davenport to a hand specialist to treat his burnt hand. The hand specialist who treated Davenport referred him to the Grossman Burn Center. A Faeth representative claimed Faeth would pay that bill too. After six to nine days of treatment at the Grossman Burn Center, Davenport was released and returned to work at Faeth. Davenport received a bill for $69,000 from the Grossman Burn Center while he was still working for Faeth.
Faeth did not offer to pay any other bills and did not provide Davenport with any workers' compensation forms.
In 2003, Davenport discovered that his medical bills still appeared as derogatory information on his credit reports. He had previously believed that this information would fall off his credit report.
Davenport claimed he discovered he might have a workers' compensation claim in 2003. He filed this claim on June 5, 2003.
The administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Davenport's claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations contained in Labor Code section 5405. The ALJ found that Davenport was "aware that he might have a workers' compensation claim as he consulted an attorney by telephone in 1997 or 1998 to see if he had a viable case." The ALJ also concluded that the SCIF was prejudiced by the lapse of ti
Page 1 2 3 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|