How a 4-Year Delay and Conflicted Reporting Revived a “Dead” Appeal

Imagine this scenario: You have a file where a Findings and Award was issued in 2020. The applicant appealed in early 2021. Then… silence. The statutory deadline for the WCAB to act passes. One year goes by. Then two. Then four. You assume the appeal was “deemed denied” by operation of law, so you settle and close the case.

Then, in July 2025, you receive a decision granting the appeal and sending the case back to trial.

This nightmare scenario is exactly what happened in the recent panel decision, Blunt v. California Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation. This case serves as a stark warning about relying on statutory deadlines when administrative errors are involved, and a reminder about the importance of scrubbing medical reports for consistency.

The Story: A Nurse, A Prison, and a Misplaced File

 The Injury

Rebecca Blunt worked as a Registered Nurse for the CDCR.1 She filed a claim for cumulative trauma psychiatric injury ending in April 2014. Her claim was based on significant workplace stressors, including witnessing inmates engaging in lewd acts (masturbation) and a lack of support from her supervisors.

The Trial & The “Black Hole”

In December 2020, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found she had sustained an industrial injury resulting in 21% permanent disability. However, the judge denied her claim for Temporary Disability (TD) for the 2014–2016 period based on the report of the Panel QME.

Ms. Blunt filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration in January 2021. The file was transmitted to the Appeals Board in February 2021. Under Labor Code § 5909, the Board has 60 days to act on a petition, or it is “deemed denied” by law.²

The 60 days came and went. In fact, 1,572 days passed. The WCAB had essentially lost the file due to an administrative error.

After the Petition for Reconsideration was filed, and after the 60 days had elapsed but sometime before the decision was made (and maybe before or after the Shipley letter was issued) the applicant died.  The applicant’s death was well before the WCAB issued its decision 4 ½ years later!  A Petition for Guardian Ad Litem and Trustee was approved by the Trial level WCJ after the Petition for Reconsideration.  More importantly, the parties entered into a Compromise and Release; and Award (Dependency Claim) with an Order Approving C&R issued in due course. The WCAB provides no details as to the dates any of these events transpired.

The Legal Ruling: Why “Deemed Denied” Didn’t Apply

 Defense counsel might look at Labor Code § 5909 and argue the Board lost jurisdiction years ago. However, in Blunt, the Board invoked the “Shipley Rule” (Shipley v. WCAB, 1992).

The Shipley precedent establishes “equitable tolling.” Simply put: If the Board drops the ball (loses a file, fails to process paperwork), the applicant cannot be punished for the Board’s mistake. Even though four years had passed, the Board ruled that denying the petition now would violate due process. They granted the petition to review the case on its merits.

The Medical Flaw: Why the Denial Was Overturned

Once the Board finally looked at the file, they found the medical evidence used to deny the TD was defective.

The QME, Dr. O’Dowd, had issued a report that was internally contradictory. In the same report regarding the contested period, he opined that the applicant was:

1. Temporarily Partially Disabled;
2. Temporarily Totally Disabled; and
3. Permanent and Stationary (MMI).

The Board ruled that a report cannot simultaneously find a worker TTD and P&S. Because the WCJ relied on this confused reporting to deny benefits, the Findings and Award was rescinded, and the case was sent back to the trial level for a new QME or supplemental report.

Practical Takeaways for the Claims Desk

Why does Blunt v. CDCR matter to your daily desk management? Here are three critical lessons:

1. The “Deemed Denied” Date is Not a Guarantee

Do not automatically close your file or assume you have won just because the 60-day reconsideration window has passed without a decision. If the WCAB has not issued an order, the case might be sitting in a “Shipley” pile.

• Action Item:   Serve a “courtesy copy” of your Petition for Reconsideration on the WCAB to alert them of the file and help stave off these clerical errors.
• Action Item: If a Petition for Reconsideration has been pending for more than 90 days, proactively follow up with the WCAB or your defense attorney to confirm the status rather than let it sit for years.
• Action Item: Always inform the WCAB when a case pending at the WCAB with the “Recon Unit” is settling so that they know that the case has settled and decide what their next steps will be.
2. Scrutinize QME Reports for Internal Logic

In this case, the defense likely relied on the QME’s conclusion (“No TD”) without challenging the logic. The QME’s contradiction (saying she was both TTD and P&S) eventually cost the defense a “win.”

• Action Item: When reading a QME report, cross-reference the diagnosis, the work status, and the MMI date. If they conflict, do not proceed to trial. Ask for a supplemental report to clarify the ambiguity before a judge rules on it.
3. Apportionment Must Be Based on Disability, Not Treatment

The Board also flagged the QME’s apportionment. The doctor apportioned 30% to non-industrial factors simply because the applicant had received treatment since 2009.

• Action Item: Remember the Escobedo standard. Treatment does not equal disability. When a doctor apportions to pre-existing conditions, ensure they explain how & why that pre-existing condition applies to this case and this industrial injury; and don’t take favorable language for granted.

What is the Bottom Line that Blunt teaches us? That in California Workers’ Comp, silence from the Board doesn’t mean the case is over, and contradictory medical reporting is a ticking time bomb—even four years later.