Opinion ID: 1176938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Question: Is petitioner's claim barred by the statute of limitations?

Text: No. The board concluded that a study of the record leads to the inevitable conclusion that [petitioner] either knew or should have known of the relationship of his heart attack to his employment activities and that since no benefits were furnished, the proceedings were barred by sections 5404 and 5405 of the Labor Code. It accordingly ordered that petitioner take nothing by reason of the proceedings. PG&E, however, was required, under administrative rules issued by the Administrative Director, Division of Industrial Accidents, Department of Industrial Relations, to notify petitioner that there was a possibility he would be entitled to workmen's compensation benefits and, since it apparently denied that he was entitled to benefits, to send him an unequivocal statement to that effect; and it failed to do so. As a result, the statute of limitations had not commenced to run at the time petitioner filed his claim. Section 138.4 of the Labor Code provides: The administrative director shall, with respect to injuries involving loss of time: ¶ (a) Prescribe reasonable rules and regulations for the serving on the employee of reports dealing with the payment or nonpayment of benefits.... The pertinent administrative rules are contained in title 8, chapter 4.5, of the California Administrative Code. At the time of petitioner's injury, one of the rules (§ 9816) provided, in part: In every case of which the employer has notice or knowledge of an injury which: (a) requires hospitalization, or results in disability of more than seven days... he shall give to the employee ... notice of payment or nonpayment of benefits.... [2] Section 9817, subdivision (d), provides, Notice of rejection of liability shall be sent upon making the decision to deny liability. And under section 9859 it is provided that in the notice of denial of benefits the following paragraphs are mandatory: Should you believe that you are entitled to benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Law: 1) you may contact the Administrative Director ... for information or assistance; 2) you may file an application for a hearing before a referee of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board; 3) you may consult an attorney or representative of your choice. If you have any questions, act immediately. If you wait too long, you may lose your rights to benefits. (1) The clear purpose of these rules is to protect and preserve the rights of an injured employee who may be ignorant of the procedures or, indeed, the very existence of the workmen's compensation law. Since the employer is generally in a better position to be aware of the employee's rights, it is proper that he should be charged with the responsibility of notifying the employee, under circumstances such as those existing here, that there is a possibility he may have a claim for workmen's compensation benefits. Although, as hereinabove pointed out, the board concluded that petitioner either knew or should have known of the relationship of his heart attack to his employment, the referee had found that petitioner did not realize the relationship until some time in December 1970 and that his failure to realize the relationship was due to a lack of sophistication. The supervisory personnel of PG&E, on the other hand, undoubtedly had the experience to recognize that there could be a basis for a claim that petitioner's heart attack was industrially caused. (2) Since PG&E was obligated to give the notices prescribed by the administrative rules and failed to do so, it may not raise the technical defense of the statute of limitations to defeat petitioner's claim. (See Mihesuah v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., 29 Cal. App.3d 337, 340-341 [105 Cal. Rptr. 561].) The opinion and decision after reconsideration is annulled, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.