What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; both dismissal orders vacated; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's January 12, 2026 order reaffirming dismissal. The WCAB panel reviewed the record, granted reconsideration, vacated both the August 2, 2024 and January 12, 2026 dismissal orders, and returned the matter to the trial level.
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 August 2, 2024 dismissal order was void ab initio as a prohibited 'self-destruct' order under WCAB Rule 10550(f); applicant timely objected, showing good cause. The January 12, 2026 reaffirmation of dismissal was improper as applicant was not afforded an opportunity to be heard after timely objection to the NIT.
From the decision · page 6As evidenced by the January 12, 2026 Order, WCJ Sulprizio chose the path of least resistance and simply skipped the steps of reviewing the record and creating a record; she decided that no objection had been filed in response to the August 2, 2024 Order. We emphasize that even if no objection had ever been filed, the August 2, 2024 Order was void ab initio here because WCAB Rule 10550(f) prohibits self-destruct orders. In other words, the August 2, 2024 Order was invalid and never enforceable even at the time it issued.