Gaddy V. Patton State Hospital 52 CWCR 48)
Applicant filed an application for a 2002 specific injury to his lumbar spine and lower extremities. The applicant had a lengthy history of low back and leg problems over his nursing career since 1984.
The applicant was evaluated by an Agreed Medical Evaluator who reported that applicant’s mechanism of specific injury “does not appear to be a significant mechanism of injury to significantly aggravate the underlying degenerative changes.” The AME left open the possibility that applicant’s symptoms were instead the result of continuous trauma injury, but he did not comment further other than to note that no CT claim had been filed. The agreed medical evaluator also apportioned 75% of the disability to underline degeneration that preexisted the specific injury.
During his deposition in 2007, the AME opined that if the trier fact were to find the applicant had not suffered a specific injury, he would find the applicant had suffered a cumulative trauma injury.
The applicant filed an amended application in 2006, asserting a cumulative injury through the last date of his employment 2004.
The AME changed his apportionment to 50% connected to the CT injury and opined the applicant’s specific injury was not a separate injury, but simply part of the overall cumulative trauma.
The AME was then provided updated records and found 25% apportionment to the underlying degenerative changes, 25% the result of the specific injury and 50% to the cumulative trauma. The doctor clarified in his deposition that the specific injury was not a separate and discrete injury but part of the overall cumulative trauma.
The WCJ found the applicant had not sustained a specific injury and the CT claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The WCJ saw no cause to toll the Statute of Limitations for the CT claim.
The WCAB granted applicant’s petition for reconsideration. The WCAB ruled that the relation back doctrine protected applicant cumulative injury from being barred by the Statute of Limitations.
The WCAB concluded the doctrine applied because applicant’s amended claim did not constitute a new and different cause of action, but rather superseded the original filing while keeping the date of the filing of the original action intact. Further, because applicant’s disability pled in both claims was the same and arose from the same set of facts, the amended claim sufficiently related back to the original claim and therefore was not barred.
The panel noted the AME and reported that applicant injury was better described as a single period of continuous trauma (not two) and not as a specific injury. The specific injury was within the CT claim.
The WCAB cited the case of Bassett McGregor (653 CCC 502) indicating the case was limited to situations in which the disability is the same and the injury arose from the same set of facts. They further noted the facts in that case were not unlike the instant case, in that the applicant was amending a prior claim to a new mechanism of injury arising out of the same facts in the same body parts.
In this case the AME’s opinion on the mechanism of injury was persuasive and supported a ruling that the amended pleading related back to the original pleading. The WCAB noted that the Bassett case indicated that claim should be adjudicated on substance rather than formality and endorsed the policy of the law that favors hearing cases on the merits.
The WCAB noted four principles based on Bassett-McGregor that pleadings may be informal, claim should be adjudicated based on substance rather than form, pleading should be liberally construed so as to not defeat or undermine an injured employee’s right to make a claim, and technically deficient pleadings, if they give notice and are timely, normally do not deprive the Board of jurisdiction.
Rules provide for considerable latitude in accepting nonstandard pleadings, provided they contain certain information. In this case the interests of substantial justice justify adjudication on the merits of the injury, rather than dismissal by administrative fiat for technical noncompliance and the pleadings. Therefore, the WCAB found applicant’s amended pleadings related back to the original pleading and was not otherwise barred.
