What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Order Allowing Withdrawal of Attorney of Record dated October 27, 2025, rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Order Allowing Withdrawal of Attorney of Record dated October 27, 2025, which was granted by the WCJ, and the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation to deny the petition for reconsideration. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the order, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.
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 the WCJ erred in dismissing applicant's attorney without proper service of the Notice of Intent and Order, and that applicant's objection to the Notice of Intent was timely and must be considered. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was granted, the order was rescinded, and the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Order Allowing Withdrawal of Attorney of Record (Order) dated October 27, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ ordered that applicant's attorneys, Matthew Schondel and the Law Office of Kneisler & Schondel, be relieved as attorney of record for applicant.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No proof of service of the Order Allowing Withdrawal of Attorney of Record in the record.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This made it impossible to determine the effective date of the Order, so the petition for reconsideration was treated as timely filed.
From the decision · page 6The Petition in this matter was filed on January 15, 2026. While the Order was served on applicant's attorney by designation, there is no proof of service in the record. This means that we are unable to determine the effective date of the Order, and we treat applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as timely filed. We note that in her Petition, applicant refers to delays in receipt of mail, and that she "only just became aware" of the Order.
No proof of service of the Notice of Intent to dismiss attorney in the record.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This made it impossible to determine the effective date of the Notice of Intent, so the objection by applicant was treated as timely and had to be considered.
From the decision · page 5Hence, the WCJ has proceeded as if no objection to the NIT was filed by applicant, which is incorrect. On this record, we are unable to determine when the time for objection commenced because defendant failed to file a proof of service of the NIT, so that we cannot determine the effective date of the NIT. We also observe that if the WCJ wished to designate service, it would have been more appropriate to designate it to the applicant's attorney since the petition to withdraw was by applicant's attorney. Accordingly, we treat applicant's objection to the NIT as timely filed, and it must be considered by the WCJ.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.
The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition for reconsideration filed by applicant.
From the decision · page 2Former Labor Code section 59092 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10600(b)
If the last day to act falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline extends to the next business day.
The deadline for the Appeals Board to act on the petition was extended to the next business day, March 30, 2026, when the decision was issued.
From the decision · page 33 WCAB Rule 10600(b) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b)) states that: Unless otherwise provided by law, if the last day for exercising or performing any right or duty to act or respond falls on a weekend, or on a holiday for which the offices of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board are closed, the act or response may be performed or exercised upon the next business day.
Labor Code section 5909(b)(2)
Service of the Report and Recommendation constitutes notice of transmission to the parties.
Service of the Report and Recommendation on January 27, 2026, provided actual notice to the parties of the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to act.
From the decision · page 3Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on January 27, 2026, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on January 27, 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 January 27, 2026.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10629
WCAB Rule 10629 requires service of orders on the injured employee or dependent, whether represented or not.
The WCJ failed to properly serve the Notice of Intent and Order on applicant, which affected the timeliness of objections and petitions.
From the decision · page 4Furthermore, we remind the parties and the WCJ that WCAB Rule 10629 states: (a) The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board may, in its discretion, designate a party or their attorney or agent of record to serve any order that is not required to be served by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board in accordance with rule 10628.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No proof of service of the Notice of Intent to dismiss attorney or the Order Allowing Withdrawal of Attorney of Record in the record, making it impossible to determine the effective dates of service.
From the decision · page 5Hence, the WCJ has proceeded as if no objection to the NIT was filed by applicant, which is incorrect. On this record, we are unable to determine when the time for objection commenced because defendant failed to file a proof of service of the NIT, so that we cannot determine the effective date of the NIT. We also observe that if the WCJ wished to designate service, it would have been more appropriate to designate it to the applicant's attorney since the petition to withdraw was by applicant's attorney. Accordingly, we treat applicant's objection to the NIT as timely filed, and it must be considered by the WCJ.
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.