The Late-Reported Cumulative Trauma and the 90-Day Trap
A 47-year-old warehouse selector reports right shoulder pain he first noticed 14 months ago, attributing it to repetitive overhead lifting. He told his supervisor nothing until last Tuesday, when the pain became disabling. The employer's claims administrator receives the DWC-1 on day 9 after the employee's report. The adjuster notes the employee had a prior 2019 right shoulder strain with the same employer, closed with no permanent disability, and a 2021 non-industrial rotator cuff tear treated with physical therapy. The treating physician's initial report says the shoulder pain is 'consistent with cumulative repetitive trauma' but does not apportion. The adjuster must decide whether to accept, delay, or deny, and whether the claim is timely. The employer has 60 employees and no modified duty available above 10 pounds.
1. Was the claim timely reported and is the 90-day decision clock running? Walk through the dates and the controlling rule.
Read the worked answer
Yes, timely. For a cumulative trauma (CT) injury, Labor Code 5412 provides that the date of injury is the date the employee first suffers disability and knows or should know the injury arose out of employment. The employee's report to the supervisor started the employer's 30-day reporting clock under LC 5400, and the DWC-1 arrived on day 9, well within 30 days. The 90-day investigation period under LC 5402 begins when the employer receives the claim form (or the employee's knowledge-based notice), not when the injury first occurred. So the adjuster has 90 days from day 9 to accept, deny, or delay. Critically, the 14-month gap between onset and report does not defeat timeliness because the employee only recently became disabled and only recently connected the pain to work. The adjuster should calendar day 90 and treat any delay letter as tolling only if issued before the 90th day and only for the specific reason stated.
2. Should the adjuster accept, deny, or delay? Address the prior 2019 strain, the 2021 non-industrial tear, and the physician's non-apportioned opinion.
Read the worked answer
Delay, not deny, on this record. A denial requires evidence the CT injury did not arise out of employment; the treating physician's opinion that the pain is 'consistent with cumulative repetitive trauma' supports industrial causation, and the 2019 strain is the same body part with the same employer, which strengthens rather than defeats the claim. The 2021 non-industrial tear is a competing cause but does not automatically break causation under a CT theory; it creates an apportionment question, not a denial question. However, the physician did not apportion, so the adjuster cannot yet quantify permanent disability or resolve the industrial share. The proper move is a timely delay letter citing the need for a qualified medical evaluation and apportionment analysis, while paying for reasonable medical treatment that is not clearly unrelated. Denying outright would expose the carrier to a 132a or bad-faith argument and to a petition to reopen.
3. The treating physician puts the employee off work entirely. What benefit exposure exists, and how does the 60-employee count matter?
Read the worked answer
With no modified duty above 10 pounds and a full off-work status, the employee is temporarily totally disabled (TTD). TTD is payable at two-thirds of gross average weekly earnings, subject to the statutory minimum and maximum, and is not paid for the first three days unless disability exceeds 14 days. Because the claim is delayed rather than denied, the adjuster should pay TTD pending the investigation to avoid LC 5814 penalties. The 60-employee count matters for supplemental job displacement benefits and for return-to-work obligations: employers with 50 or more employees must offer regular, modified, or alternative work within 60 days of the treating physician declaring the employee permanent and stationary, or the employee may be entitled to a voucher. With no modified duty available, the adjuster should document the employer's inability to accommodate and reserve for the voucher and potential 132a exposure if the lack of modified work appears retaliatory.