What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed
Petition for Reconsideration filed on June 21, 2022, regarding the decision issued on May 23, 2022
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The petition was timely filed but was withdrawn by the petitioner, leading to dismissal.
From the decision · page 1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on May 23, 2022, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition for Reconsideration was timely filed on June 21, 2022.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The timeliness established the Board's jurisdiction to consider the petition.
From the decision · page 2Like the Court in Shipley, "we are not convinced that the burden of the system's inadequacies should fall on [a party]." (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Applicant's Petition was timely filed on June 21, 2022. Our failure to act was due to a procedural error and our time to act on applicant's Petition was tolled.
Petition for Reconsideration was withdrawn by petitioner.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Withdrawal led to dismissal of the petition.
From the decision · page 1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on May 23, 2022, has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5909
A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts within 60 days of filing.
The petition was timely filed but withdrawn, so the Board dismissed it.
From the decision · page 1Section 5909 provides that a petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts on the petition within 60 days of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) However, "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied applicant's petition for
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.