What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed and denied by the Appeals Board after review of the WCJ report
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 the petition was timely acted upon within 60 days of transmission and denied the petition on the merits because the attorney's fee demand was defective and unsupported by evidence of additional fees or penalties owed.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on October 21, 2025, and the Appeals Board acted on the petition on December 22, 2025, within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This established the timeliness of the petition for reconsideration, making the Board's denial procedurally proper.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on October 21, 2025 and 60 days from the date of transmission is Saturday, December 20, 2025. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, December 22, 2025. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)2 This decision is issued by or on December 22, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
The applicant attorney's demand for payment was defective because it did not include the attorney's State Bar number as required by law.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This procedural defect waived the argument of untimely payment and undermined the petitioner's claim for additional fees and penalties.
From the decision · page 8on December 7, 2023 and February 13, 2024. However, the applicant attorney's demand for payment is defective. Specifically, the law requires that the applicant attorney's 5710 fee demand letter include the applicant attorney state bar number. In this case, the applicant/attorney/Petitioner's demand letters did not. Thus, any argument of a delay in payment is waived as the applicant attorney/Petitioner's demand for payment was in and of itself, defective and failed to follow proper procedure.
The applicant testified credibly under oath that he spent approximately 10-15 minutes preparing with his attorney for the two depositions, corroborated by deposition and trial testimony.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This testimony contradicted the petitioner's claim for additional preparation time fees, supporting the denial of additional fees.
From the decision · page 8II. Petitioner failed to substantiate the request for additional fees and costs In this case, the Petitioner filed a Petition for 5710 attorney fees in which he declared under penalty of perjury that the information contained therein was true and accurate. The Petitioner declared under penalty of perjury that he spent.67 hours in preparation with his client. (See Exhibit 1, Amended Petition dated December 4, 2024, EAMS 55241198 ). However, the Petitioner has provided no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the evidence in this matter supports just the opposite. First, the applicant himself has now testified under oath on four separate occasions that he spent substantially less time with his attorney in preparing for the depositions.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon by the Appeals Board within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board, or it is deemed denied (Labor Code section 5909).
The Appeals Board acted on the petition on December 22, 2025, within the 60-day period from transmission on October 21, 2025.
From the decision · page 1I. Former Labor Code1 section 5909 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: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
Labor Code section 5710
Attorney fees are discretionary and require proper procedural compliance for fee demands under Labor Code section 5710.
The petitioner's fee demand was defective for failure to include the attorney's State Bar number, resulting in waiver of the untimely payment argument.
From the decision · page 7Petition for Labor Code Section 5710 Attorney's Fees (a) A petition for attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code section 5710 is a petition seeking attorney fees for representation of the applicant at a deposition allowable under Labor Code section 5710(b) as well as any other benefits listed under Labor Code section 5710(b)(1)-(5). (b) The caption of the petition shall identify it as a "Petition for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to Labor Code Section 5710." (c) A petition for attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code section 5710 shall be verified upon oath in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record. (d) A petition for attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code section 5710 shall not be filed or served until at least 30 days after a written demand for the fees has been served on the defendant(s). The petition shall append: (1) A copy of the written demand, together with a copy of the proof of service; (2) A copy of the response, if any; (3) A proof of service showing service on the injured worker and the defendant alleged to be liable for paying the fees; and (e) Failure to comply with subdivisions (c) and (d)(1)-(3) of this rule shall constitute a valid ground for dismissing the petition. (f) The petition shall contain the name of the attorney who attended the deposition along with the attorney's State Bar number.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony under oath that he spent approximately 10-15 minutes preparing with his attorney for two depositions, corroborated by deposition and trial testimony
From the decision · page 8II. Petitioner failed to substantiate the request for additional fees and costs In this case, the Petitioner filed a Petition for 5710 attorney fees in which he declared under penalty of perjury that the information contained therein was true and accurate. The Petitioner declared under penalty of perjury that he spent.67 hours in preparation with his client. (See Exhibit 1, Amended Petition dated December 4, 2024, EAMS 55241198 ). However, the Petitioner has provided no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the evidence in this matter supports just the opposite. First, the applicant himself has now testified under oath on four separate occasions that he spent substantially less time with his attorney in preparing for the depositions.
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.