What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; Finding of Fact 2 in the prior decision is struck as a clerical error; decision amended accordingly.
Petition for reconsideration filed by Travelers Indemnity Company to correct a clerical error in the Findings and Award of September 8, 2023, and the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and issued a Notice of Intention to amend the decision.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold December 4, 2023.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The Appeals Board found that Finding 2 incorrectly stated that Travelers was the workers' compensation carrier in 2001, which was contradicted by the record and prior stipulations, constituting a clerical error that required correction to ensure substantial justice and due process.
From the decision · page 7Accordingly, we grant Traveler's Petition for Reconsideration and issue Notice of our Intention to amend our Decision, and correct the F&A to strike Finding 2.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Travelers did not provide workers' compensation coverage for Saitek Industries in 2001, as stipulated by the parties and reflected in the record.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact showed that Finding 2 in the prior decision was a clerical error regarding the insurance carrier at the time of injury.
From the decision · page 6Here, the parties stipulated at trial that "At the time of injury, the employer's workers' compensation carrier was CIGA by its servicing facility Sedgwick for Pacific National Insurance, in liquidation." (MOH/SOE, May 18, 2023 trial, p. 2, emphasis added.) Moreover, in a Declaration of Readiness dated January 13, 2016, Travelers stated: "Travelers does not have
Travelers was dismissed without objection for lack of coverage in 2016.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This dismissal supported the conclusion that Travelers was not the carrier at the time of injury, reinforcing the clerical error finding.
From the decision · page 7coverage and requests to be dismissed as a party defendant." (January 13, 2016 DOR, p. 7.) Minutes from a hearing on April 6, 2016 state: "Travelers is dismissed without prejudice for lack of coverage. There is no objection from applicant attorney or defendant CIGA." (April 6, 2016 minutes, p. 1, emphasis added.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the Appeals Board (Labor Code section 5909).
The Board timely acted on the petition for reconsideration within the 60-day period.
From the decision · page 5Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on August 28, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is October 27, 2025. This decision is issued by or on October 27, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
Labor Code section 5803
The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction to rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award for good cause, including clerical errors (Labor Code section 5803).
The Board exercised its continuing jurisdiction to correct the clerical error in Finding 2.
From the decision · page 5II. Here, the issue before us concerns our ability to correct our own error. Subject to the limitations of section 5804, "[t]he appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards made and entered under the provisions of [Division 4]... At any time, upon notice and after the opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor." (Lab. Code, § 5803.) Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Parties stipulated at trial that CIGA was the workers' compensation carrier in 2001, not Travelers.
From the decision · page 6Here, the parties stipulated at trial that "At the time of injury, the employer's workers' compensation carrier was CIGA by its servicing facility Sedgwick for Pacific National Insurance, in liquidation." (MOH/SOE, May 18, 2023 trial, p. 2, emphasis added.) Moreover, in a Declaration of Readiness dated January 13, 2016, Travelers stated: "Travelers does not have
Travelers was dismissed without objection for lack of coverage in 2016.
From the decision · page 7coverage and requests to be dismissed as a party defendant." (January 13, 2016 DOR, p. 7.) Minutes from a hearing on April 6, 2016 state: "Travelers is dismissed without prejudice for lack of coverage. There is no objection from applicant attorney or defendant CIGA." (April 6, 2016 minutes, p. 1, emphasis added.)
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.