What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed for failure to file from a final order or decision as required by Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration without attorney assistance, which was recommended for dismissal by the WCJ.
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 dismissed because it was not filed from a final order or decision as required by law, and the Appeals Board timely acted on the petition within 60 days of transmission.
From the decision · page 31180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. In this matter, no order has issued, whether final or interlocutory. Applicant has not filed a Petition from a "final" order, decision, or award to reconsider as required by sections 5900(a), 5902 and 5903. Instead, applicant has made allegations regarding how his now, former attorney, failed to represent him in the case, which is not appropriate when seeking reconsideration. Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration without attorney assistance on February 4, 2026.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This initiated the reconsideration process and is the procedural posture of the case.
From the decision · page 1On February 4, 2026, applicant, without his attorney's assistance, filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition). On March 9, 2026, applicant filed a Notice of Dismissal of Attorney and is now in pro per.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 20, 2026, and the Report and Recommendation was served the same day.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This established the start of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act on the petition.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on February 20, 2026, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 20, 2026. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on February 20, 2026.
Applicant did not file the Petition from a final order, decision, or award as required by Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This is the legal basis for dismissing the Petition for Reconsideration.
From the decision · page 31180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. In this matter, no order has issued, whether final or interlocutory. Applicant has not filed a Petition from a "final" order, decision, or award to reconsider as required by sections 5900(a), 5902 and 5903. Instead, applicant has made allegations regarding how his now, former attorney, failed to represent him in the case, which is not appropriate when seeking reconsideration. Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration must be filed from a final order, decision, or award as defined by case law and Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903.
The petition was dismissed because it was not filed from a final order or decision as required by law.
From the decision · page 31180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. In this matter, no order has issued, whether final or interlocutory. Applicant has not filed a Petition from a "final" order, decision, or award to reconsider as required by sections 5900(a), 5902 and 5903. Instead, applicant has made allegations regarding how his now, former attorney, failed to represent him in the case, which is not appropriate when seeking reconsideration. Accordingly, we dismiss applicant's Petition for Reconsideration.
Labor Code section 5909(a)
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board as required by Labor Code section 5909(a).
The decision was issued on the 60th day after transmission, thus timely acting on the petition.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 20, 2026, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Tuesday, April 21, 2026. This decision is issued by or on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
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.