Putman: Earlier Disability Benefits Survived a Later Legal Injury Date

If years of work have left you with lasting injuries, learning much later that they were work-related can make the claim feel impossibly tangled. One date may describe when the work harmed you, another when the disability became permanent, and another when you understood the connection. The benefits question depends on what each date means.

In Putman v. Baltimore Orioles, No. ADJ13157138 (WCAB Sept. 15, 2025), the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board upheld an award for a former professional baseball player. His legal cumulative-injury date was in February 2022, but the medical evidence supported disability benefits beginning in 1981. The Board also left intact the weekly earnings finding and rejected an objection to the procedure used to obtain his medical reports.

The later legal injury date served a different purpose

Eddy Putman claimed cumulative injury from January 5, 1975 through October 1, 1981 while employed as a professional baseball player. The trial judge found a February 2022 injury date under Labor Code section 5412. That statute brings together disability and actual or reasonably expected knowledge that work caused it.

The employer and carrier argued that the 2022 finding barred temporary disability for March 1 through June 1, 1981 and permanent disability beginning June 1, 1981. The injury-date analysis in Putman rejected that premise. The section 5412 date was separate from the period of harmful exposure and the date permanent-disability payments began.

The Board relied on J.T. Thorp v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Butler), 153 Cal.App.3d 327, 341 (1984). That decision explained that the statutory injury date protects against a limitations period expiring before the worker reasonably knows about the injury. It does not determine the underlying fact of whether work caused harm.

For a worker with a delayed diagnosis, build a timeline showing the work exposure, first disability, medical advice about its cause and later knowledge of that connection. Each entry needs its own supporting records. An old exposure period and a recent legal injury date can coexist; the medical and legal questions still have to be proved.

Medical evidence supported the earlier disability period

The June 12, 2025 award found temporary total disability from March 1 through June 1, 1981 and 84 percent permanent disability. The parties had stipulated that Putman became permanent and stationary on June 1, 1981—the point when his condition had stabilized for assessment of permanent disability.

Dr. Michael Einbund’s reporting supplied the medical support. The adopted judge’s report described his examination, expertise and explanation of the earlier disability. It also quoted his conclusion that there was no indication Putman’s post-baseball activities had contributed significantly to his current findings.

The carrier relied on another decision, Penrose, to challenge a retroactive award. The medical-evidence comparison in Putman addressed the difference that mattered: The reporting in that other case had been found inherently speculative, while Einbund’s opinion here was accepted as substantial medical evidence. The parties’ agreed permanent-and-stationary date supplied an additional reason to preserve the finding.

The Board also applied Brower v. David Jones Construction, 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 550, 552, 561 (WCAB en banc 2014), concerning the transition between temporary and permanent disability. Those benefits compensate for different losses. Section 4650 addresses payment timing and its exceptions. Here, the supported disability periods and agreed stabilization date justified permanent disability beginning in 1981 despite the later section 5412 date.

A retrospective opinion needs a reasoned medical foundation. Preserve the earlier treatment and work records, later examinations and any evidence of intervening injuries or activities. Ask the evaluator to explain the period of disability and the basis for connecting it to the earlier work. The age of the history makes that explanation especially important.

The earnings finding rested on more than the payroll estimate

The earnings dispute changed during the trial proceedings. By the March 19, 2025 clarification, Putman claimed $1,400 in weekly earnings. The employer and carrier claimed $368.31 based on Social Security earnings and an estimated 172 days of work between April and September 1981. Their petition also offered a different possible calculation of $414.56.

The judge found those calculations unclear. The earnings discussion in Putman expressly explained that the Social Security earnings had been considered. The problem was the calculation built from them.

Putman testified that he received a $50,000 signing bonus and that the bonus, salary, hotels, airfares and bus fares together amounted to $1,400 per week. The judge found that testimony credible and unrebutted and accepted the weekly earnings figure. The Board adopted that reasoning when it denied reconsideration.

The compensation documents therefore mattered beyond a basic salary entry. A worker disputing an earnings figure should gather the contract, bonus terms, payment records and explanation of each benefit, then show how those items produce the claimed weekly amount. Any proposed averaging period should be stated and supported so the calculation can be checked.

There is an important classification step for a current claim. Section 4454 includes overtime and the money value of board, lodging, fuel and other advantages received as pay. It excludes amounts covering special expenses caused by the nature of the job, along with specified employer-funded benefit programs. Separate payment for services from reimbursement of work expenses before adding an item to earnings. In Putman, the accepted figure rested on this worker’s testimony and the competing evidence; $1,400 was his weekly earnings finding, not the amount of every disability check.

The claimed injury period governed the evaluator procedure

The carrier’s final argument challenged whether Einbund’s reports could be used at all. It argued that the February 2022 section 5412 date required compliance with the medical-evaluation procedure in section 4062.2 and made the reports inadmissible.

The medical-procedure analysis in Putman followed Simi v. Sav-Max Foods, Inc., 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 217, 221 (WCAB en banc 2005), and Nunez v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, 136 Cal.App.4th 584, 593 (2006). Those authorities preserved the former section 4062 procedure for represented workers claiming injuries before January 1, 2005, after statutory amendments created a gap in the evaluation process for those older injuries.

The distinction was between the injury period being claimed and a later judicial finding under section 5412. Parties needed a way to obtain the medical evidence without first litigating that legal date. Putman alleged injury during 1975–1981, so the Board accepted the reports under the procedure for the older claimed injury.

Current section 4062.2(a) specifies injuries or claimed injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2005 for represented workers. Before arranging an evaluation or challenging a report in an older case, give counsel the claimed exposure dates, representation history, requests, objections and evaluator records. The procedure should be identified from the actual claim and governing law.

The existing award remained in place

The formal order in Putman denied reconsideration. It preserved the June 12 award findings, including the earlier disability periods, the 84 percent permanent-disability finding and the accepted weekly earnings. Each challenged issue had its own answer: The legal date did not control benefit commencement, substantial medical evidence supported the disability history, credible testimony supported earnings, and the claimed injury period supported the report procedure.

Our Simi analysis explains a different-specialty examination under the older procedure. Our Lira analysis addresses how a cumulative-injury date affected employer responsibility. Putman brings the benefit periods, earnings evidence and medical-report procedure together in one challenged award.

If those issues arise in your claim, bring the work history, medical reports, earlier disability records, compensation agreement and the award being challenged. A review can then test the particular date argument, the evidence behind the rate and the procedure used to obtain the medical opinion.