What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed; petition for removal granted; venue transferred to Salinas District Office.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's order denying objection to venue; the Board dismissed reconsideration as improper and granted removal to transfer venue.
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.
Defendant timely objected to venue in Fresno within 30 days of receiving the Notice of Application, so venue must be assigned according to Labor Code section 5501.5(a)(1) or (a)(2).
From the decision · page 2In this case, the Notice of Application, indicating venue in Fresno, issued on March 26, 2021. In its verified petition, defendant asserts that it received the Notice of Application on March 26, 2021. (Petition for Reconsideration, at p. 1:28.) Thereafter, defendant timely objected within 30 days on April 14, 2021. Accordingly, pursuant to section 5501.5(c), we will order venue transferred to Salinas.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant received the Notice of Application on March 26, 2021, and objected to venue on April 14, 2021, within the 30-day period required by statute.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This timely objection required venue to be transferred under Labor Code section 5501.5(c).
From the decision · page 2In this case, the Notice of Application, indicating venue in Fresno, issued on March 26, 2021. In its verified petition, defendant asserts that it received the Notice of Application on March 26, 2021. (Petition for Reconsideration, at p. 1:28.) Thereafter, defendant timely objected within 30 days on April 14, 2021. Accordingly, pursuant to section 5501.5(c), we will order venue transferred to Salinas.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Maranian v. WCAB (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. WCAB (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.
The WCJ's order denying defendant's objection to venue was not a final order, so reconsideration was improper.
From the decision · page 1A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions,
Labor Code section 5501.5(a), (c); WCAB Rule 10488
A timely objection to venue under section 5501.5(c) must be filed within 30 days of receipt of the notice of adjudication number; a timely objection results in venue being assigned in accordance with section 5501.5(a)(1) or (a)(2).
Defendant timely objected to venue, so venue must be transferred to Salinas District Office.
From the decision · page 2Labor Code1 section 5501.5(a) sets forth the locations where an application for adjudication of claim may be filed: 1) the county where the injured employee or the dependent of a deceased employee resides, 2) the county where the injury allegedly occurred, and 3) the county where the employee's attorney maintains his or her principal place of business. (Lab. Code, § 5501.5(a).) Subsection 5501.5(c) provides that, if the employer objects to venue selected on the basis of the employee's attorney's principal place of business, within 30 days of receipt of the information request form, then the application shall be filed pursuant to the first two paragraphs of subdivision (a), i.e., in the county where the employee, or dependent of a deceased employee, resides or where the injury allegedly occurred. WCAB Rule 10488 provides that, a timely objection to venue pursuant to section 5501.5(c) must be filed within 30 days of receipt of the notice of the adjudication number. "A timely objection shall result in venue being assigned in accordance with Labor Code section 5501.5(a)(1) or (a)(2)." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. § 10488.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant timely objected to venue within 30 days of receiving the Notice of Application.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the Notice of Application, indicating venue in Fresno, issued on March 26, 2021. In its verified petition, defendant asserts that it received the Notice of Application on March 26, 2021. (Petition for Reconsideration, at p. 1:28.) Thereafter, defendant timely objected within 30 days on April 14, 2021. Accordingly, pursuant to section 5501.5(c), we will order venue transferred to Salinas.
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.