What
is a Cumulative Trauma Injury?
A cumulative trauma
injury is an injury that is caused by repeated events or repeated exposures at
work. For example, hurting your wrist by
doing the same motion over and over, or losing your hearing because of constant
loud noise.
Post-Termination
Cumulative Trauma Injury Claims
Generally, an
employee cannot file a claim after termination, even if the
injury occurred prior to notice of the termination. However, there are multiple exceptions to
this general rule.
In cases of
cumulative trauma injuries, Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)(D) provides an exception to this general rule. To qualify for this exception, the employee must
show that the date of injury occurred after termination or layoff. The date of injury is defined by Labor Code section
5412 to occur when the employee (1) first suffers disability from the
injury, AND (2) knows or should have known that the disability was caused by
the employment. This exception applies
where an employee suffers a work-related cumulative trauma injury, but only
discovers that the injury is work-related after being fired.
In recently applying Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)(D), the court of appeal held in County of
Riverside v. Worker’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 119, that a
former Deputy Sheriff did not know, and could not have reasonably known, that
the cumulative trauma injuries he suffered were industrially caused until his
doctor told him that his symptoms were industrially related, and therefore the
statute of limitations for workers’ compensation claim did not begin to run
until that time. Also, in City of
Fresno v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals. Bd. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 467, despite
the employee's expression of belief that his employment caused his injury, the
court of appeal held that the applicant could not have reasonably known that his
injury was work-related because he did not have expert training or
qualifications to recognize the relationship between the known adverse factors
involved in his employment and his injury. Thus, the court held that the applicant’s one-year limitation period to
file a claim began with the city’s denial of benefits letter, and the
applicant’s claim, filed within a year of the letter, was timely.
