If a prior PD award exists, it is conclusively presumed that the prior PD exists at the time of any subsequent industrial injury. Which option reflects this?

If a prior PD award exists, it is conclusively presumed that the prior PD exists at the time of any subsequent industrial injury. Which option reflects this?

• A. The prior PD exists at the time of any subsequent injury.
• B. The prior PD is removed if a new injury occurs.
• C. The prior PD exists only when the subsequent injury occurs within two years.
• D. There is no presumption about prior PD.

Answer: (C)

In California workers’ compensation, when there’s a prior permanent disability (PD) award, there is a time-limited presumption about its existence at the time of a later industrial injury. That presumption applies only if the later injury occurs within two years of the prior PD award. So, if the second injury happens within two years, you treat the prior PD as existing for purposes of evaluating the new claim. If the second injury occurs after two years, the presumption no longer applies, and you cannot conclusively assume the prior PD was still in existence at that time. Therefore, the correct option reflects that the prior PD exists only when the subsequent injury occurs within two years. The other statements don’t match how this time-bound presumption works. For example, it isn’t automatic for any later injury beyond two years, nor is it removed by a new injury, nor is there no presumption at all.

In California workers’ compensation, when there’s a prior permanent disability (PD) award, there is a time-limited presumption about its existence at the time of a later industrial injury. That presumption applies only if the later injury occurs within two years of the prior PD award. So, if the second injury happens within two years, you treat the prior PD as existing for purposes of evaluating the new claim. If the second injury occurs after two years, the presumption no longer applies, and you cannot conclusively assume the prior PD was still in existence at that time. Therefore, the correct option reflects that the prior PD exists only when the subsequent injury occurs within two years. The other statements don’t match how this time-bound presumption works. For example, it isn’t automatic for any later injury beyond two years, nor is it removed by a new injury, nor is there no presumption at all.