Orozco: Why a Workers’ Comp Claim Filed 18 Months After the Injury Was Still Timely

A California workers’ compensation claim filed more than a year after the injury can still be timely if the employer learned of a work injury that needed more than first aid or caused lost time beyond the shift and never gave the worker a claim form and notice of his rights. The limit: the clock is paused only until the worker actually learns those rights, and the employer may prove he knew them earlier. In Jacob Orozco v. County of Monterey, No. ADJ19122773 (WCAB Oct. 30, 2026), an Appeals Board panel (Deputy Commissioner Anne Schmitz and Commissioners José H. Razo and Craig L. Snellings) denied the county’s petition for reconsideration, leaving in place a finding that a deputy sheriff’s April 2024 Application for an October 2022 ankle injury was timely.

A reported ankle injury and no claim form

On October 5, 2022, Jacob Orozco rolled his left ankle on a chair leg in a control tower at work. He filled out the county’s Employee Incident Report that day: “I heard a pop and experienced pain that prevented me from movement briefly.” A sergeant was notified, according to the incident report as the Board quoted it.

Orozco testified that he did not think he needed a doctor, that his supervisor did not offer him a claim form, and that he kept working. He sought no treatment until January 2024, when the ankle got worse. On January 18, 2024, he emailed the county’s workers’ compensation liaison asking to have it checked; the next day he received a claim form for the first time. The county’s section of that form listed January 17, 2024 as the date it first knew of the injury. The county denied the claim on March 15, 2024, citing the one-year filing period in Labor Code section 5405, and Orozco filed his Application for Adjudication in April.

The rule: no claim form, no running clock

Labor Code section 5401 requires an employer, within one working day after it learns of a work injury causing lost time beyond the shift or treatment beyond first aid, to give the worker a claim form and a Notice of Potential Eligibility for benefits. If the employer breaches that duty, the Board explained, the limitations period is tolled (paused) until the employee learns of his workers’ compensation rights. The employer must prove when the worker gained that knowledge, and under section 5409 it carries the burden of showing the period ran. The Board drew these rules from the Supreme Court’s Honeywell (Wagner) and Kaiser (Martin) decisions.

Applying them, the Board found that Orozco met his own initial burden of notice: his January 18 email told the county the old injury now needed treatment beyond first aid. The county did not prove that he knew his rights before he received the claim form on January 19, 2024, and his Application came less than a year after that date.

The Board also quoted, as further explanation, the trial judge’s reasoning, which rested on actual knowledge. The judge found that Orozco “verbally reported a specific left ankle injury to his supervisor on 10/5/2022,” which was “actual notice of a specific injury to a supervisory representative,” and that actual knowledge of the injury triggered the claim-form duty. Under that reasoning too, the clock stayed paused until the form arrived.

Calling it first aid did not excuse the missing form

The county argued that the injury needed little more than first aid, which does not trigger the claim-form duty. The Board rejected the idea that “an employer may be indefinitely relieved from the requirements outlined under section 5401” once an injury later needs more care: “There is no statutory or case law to support such a theory.” It also doubted the injury was first aid, given the pop and brief inability to move. By assuming otherwise, the county “assumed the risk associated with failing to give applicant appropriate notice of his workers’ compensation rights, including the tolling of the statute of limitations.”

The county relied on Nieblas v. Ruiz Foods (2014), an earlier panel decision barring a claim where no form was given. The Board distinguished it: that worker missed work but never showed the employer knew the absences came from a work injury. Orozco reported his injury, and nothing showed lost time or treatment before January 2024, so, the Board concluded, “the statute of limitations was appropriately tolled until applicant received a claim form.”

Nor did Orozco’s earlier and concurrent claims prove he knew his rights. The Board rejected that argument, quoting the judge: “Prior claims do not necessarily establish actual knowledge for a new injury.” Nothing showed he knew that reporting an injury without asking for care could bar a later request.

Live, unrebutted testimony at the second trial

This was the case’s second trip to the Board. In a March 2, 2026 decision, the Board set aside a first award because that trial rested on attorneys’ offers of proof, which did not let the judge assess credibility on timeliness. At the July 2026 retrial, Orozco and a claims handler for the county’s administrator testified. The judge found Orozco’s unrebutted testimony credible, and the Board gave that finding great weight and denied reconsideration. The findings of a work injury and a timely claim stand.

What Orozco means for a late claim

In our reading, the case turned on three documents and one gap. The incident report showed the county knew of a specific injury the day it happened. The email fixed when treatment was first requested. The claim form showed when Orozco first received it, and the county’s own entry put its knowledge 15 months after the incident report. The gap was evidence that he knew his rights earlier, which the county had to supply and did not.

A worker facing a limitations defense should gather the same records: the incident report, messages to supervisors or a claims liaison, the date a claim form was first offered, and any earlier notice of benefit rights. The answer can change if the employer proves it gave the form or the worker otherwise knew his rights, or if, as in Nieblas, the worker missed work but did not show the employer knew the absences came from the work injury. Our guide to claim deadlines after a delay or denial explains the one-year periods and how a filed claim form affects them.