a-z indexroundtableArticles & Editorialsmarketplacemeet the publisherscontactsearch
home
  A-Z Index
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

INJURY

Labor Code §3208: "Injury" includes any injury or disease arising out of the employment, including injuries to artificial members, dentures, hearing aids, eyeglasses and medical braces of all types; provided, however, that eyeglasses and hearing aids will not be replaced, repaired, or otherwise compensated for, unless injury to them is incident to an injury causing disability.

Types of injuries are defined in Labor Code §3208.1: An injury may be either: (a) "specific," occurring as the result of one incident or exposure which causes disability or need for medical treatment; or (b) "cumulative," occurring as repetitive mentally or physically traumatic activities extending over a period of time, the combined effect of which causes any disability or need for medical treatment. The date of a cumulative injury shall be the date determined under Section 5412

Labor Code §3208.2 is known as the "anti-attribution" clause: "When disability, need for medical treatment, or death results from the combined effects of two or more injuries, either specific, cumulative, or both, all questions of fact and law shall be separately determined with respect to each such injury, including, but not limited to, the apportionment between such injuries of liability for disability benefits, the cost of medical treatment, and any death benefit."

A "compensable consequence" is not a new injury with a new date of injury, but the consequence of an industrial injury or the treatment for that injury. In the leading case of SCIF v. IAC (Wallin) (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 10, the Court of Appeal found that a worker  amputated his finger at home as a result of an industrial eye injury. "Thus the first injury need not be the exclusive cause of the second but only a contributing factor to it; in this view the presence of contributory negligence in itself would not break the causative connection unless the intervening negligence were the sole and exclusive cause of the injury. So long as the original injury operates even in part as a contributing factor it establishes liability." See Compensable Consequences

Special provisions for psychiatric injuries: See Psychiatric

Label Item Links Comments
Labor Code Injury defined  

Specific or cumulative

LC §3208
 
LC §3208.1
 
  Health care workers have special provisions
LC §3208.05
 
Combined effects of two or more injuries LC §3208.2  
Regulations/Rules Reporting an injury, etc. Claim regs  
Cases  SCIF v. IAC (Wallin) (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 10: see above

Fruehauf Corp. v. WCAB (Stansbury) (1968) 68 Cal.2d 569; "For the purposes of discussion, we observe that compensable injuries under the workmen's compensation law generally fall into four categories: (1) specific injuries incurred as the result of one incident or exposure in the employment, the effects of which are immediately realized or realizable; (2) industrial injuries suffered as the result of a specific incident or exposure but which have latent effects; (3) continuous cumulative traumatic injuries, such as that involved here, suffered as the result of a number of minor strains over a period of time; (4) cumulative injuries, such as silicosis, resulting from continuous exposure to harmful substances." We are convinced that it was the Legislature's intention to classify injuries resulting from continuous cumulative traumas which are minor in themselves but eventually result in disability as occupational diseases. We perceive no supportable rationale to distinguish the legal effect of such injuries from injuries that occur as a result of continuous, latent exposure to harmful substances. That in the latter situation the insidious agency is a harmful gas or dust whereas in the former it consists of the "splintering of symptoms into small pieces, the atomization of pain into minor twinges" (see Beveridge v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 592, 595 [346 P.2d 545]) provides no justification to apply differing rules relative to the statute of limitations. The marked similarity of these two types of injuries was recognized in Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 111 [41 Cal.Rptr. 628].
SCIF v. IAC (Wallin)


Fruehauf Corp. v. WCAB (Stansbury)
 
Forms Workers’ Compensation Claim Form (DWC 1)

Employer’s first report of Injury (Form 5020) is never admissible as evidence.

Doctor's First Report of Occupational Injury or Illness 
Claim form (DWC-1)

LC §6412


Doctor's First Report of Occupational Injury or Illness 
 
Websites    
Practice Tips     
Articles
     
Magazine Articles
 
Roundtable    
Miscellaneous      

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z