ADJ19086907 · September 14, 2026

The Appeals Board found the defendant's petition for reconsideration timely filed and granted it on the merits due to errors in the original OACR and the need for further proceedings with amended settlement documents.

The OACR contained errors regarding temporary disability payments, specifically an overpayment credit was not reflected.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This error was the basis for defendant's petition for reconsideration and the Appeals Board's decision to grant it and rescind the OACR.

Service of the OACR on the parties was not properly effectuated until June 12, 2026, extending the time to file the petition for reconsideration.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact established the timeliness of defendant's petition, allowing the Appeals Board to consider it on the merits.

From the decision · page 6as all parties of record. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 § 10628(a).) Thus, service can be delegated as to orders with respect to issues not in dispute, such as a settlement by either Stipulations with Request for Award or settlement by Compromise and Release, as is the case here. Here, the WCJ served defendant with the OACR and designated defendant to serve the OACR on all parties of record, pursuant to WCAB Rule 10629(a). Thus, while defendant was served with the OACR on June 3, 2026, service was not properly effectuated on the parties until June 12, 2026. Further, we note that service of defendant’s adjusting agency was at an address outside of California.

The parties jointly requested further review of amended settlement documents, which could supersede the initial C&R and render the reconsideration issue moot.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This justified returning the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings rather than final resolution by the Appeals Board.

From the decision · page 7competent advice. (Claxton v. Waters (2004) 34 Cal.4th 367, 373 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 895]; Sumner v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 965, 972-973.) While the parties may stipulate to the facts in controversy, the WCJ is not bound by the parties’ stipulations and may make further inquiry into the matter “to enable it to determine the matter in controversy.” (Lab. Code, § 5702; see also County of Sacramento v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1119 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1]; Turner Gas Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kinney) (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 286 [40 Cal.Comp.Cases 253].) We note that all of the medical reports upon which the C&R was based were not on file. As such, we are unable to evaluate the basis or adequacy of the OACR. Further, it appears that the parties have jointly requested further review of amended settlement documents, which, if found by the WCJ to supersede the initial C&R submitted for decision, would make the issue upon which reconsideration was requested, moot.

Medical reports dated 10/24/2025 and 12/12/2025 were a basis for the C&R settlement.

From the decision · page 4The C&R is based on the following: the orthopedic QME of Dr. Edwin dated 9/15/2025. The reports of Dr. Germanovic dated 10/24/2025 and 12/12/2025. The report of Dr. Ellis Suh dated 8/23/2024. The applicant has reached maximum medical improvement per the 8/23/2024 report.

Medical report dated 8/23/2024 was a basis for the C&R settlement and indicated applicant reached maximum medical improvement.

From the decision · page 4The C&R is based on the following: the orthopedic QME of Dr. Edwin dated 9/15/2025. The reports of Dr. Germanovic dated 10/24/2025 and 12/12/2025. The report of Dr. Ellis Suh dated 8/23/2024. The applicant has reached maximum medical improvement per the 8/23/2024 report.

Orthopedic QME report dated 9/15/2025 was a basis for the C&R settlement.

From the decision · page 4The C&R is based on the following: the orthopedic QME of Dr. Edwin dated 9/15/2025. The reports of Dr. Germanovic dated 10/24/2025 and 12/12/2025. The report of Dr. Ellis Suh dated 8/23/2024. The applicant has reached maximum medical improvement per the 8/23/2024 report.

Lab. Code, §§ 5900, 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10600, 10605

Petitions for reconsideration must be filed within 20 days of service of the final decision, with extensions for service by mail and weekends/holidays.

The Appeals Board found defendant's petition timely because service was properly effectuated on June 12, 2026, and the petition was filed June 30, 2026, within the allowed time.

From the decision · page 5DISCUSSION We preliminarily address the issue raised by the WCJ as to the timeliness of defendant’s Petition. We observe that there are twenty (20) days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a “final” decision, plus five (5) calendar days if a party has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) In addition, if the party to be served is outside of California, but within the United States, the time in which to act is extended ten (10) calendar days from the date of service, or thirty (30) days total. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(2).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v.

Lab. Code, §§ 5803, 5001; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10628, 10629, 10700

The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction to rescind, alter, or amend any order for good cause upon notice and opportunity to be heard.

The Appeals Board exercised its continuing jurisdiction to rescind the OACR and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings due to errors and incomplete medical reports.

From the decision · page 6Accordingly, and to observe due process for all parties, we interpret WCAB Rule 10605 as extending the time to file for all parties after being properly served. Defendant filed the Petition on June 30, 2026, which is less than 20 days after the June 12, 2026 service on the parties of the WCJ’s OACR. Accordingly, defendant’s Petition is timely. IV. Subject to the limitations of section 5804, “[t]he appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards made and entered under the provisions of [Division 4]... At any time, upon notice and after the opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or amend any order. decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor.” (Lab.

Service of the Report and Recommendation by the WCJ on July 14, 2026, provided actual notice to the parties of the transmission date, satisfying the notice requirement for the 60-day period for Appeals Board action on the petition.

From the decision · page 3Section 5909(b)(2) (in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026) provides that service of the Report and Recommendation shall be notice of transmission. Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the WCJ, the Report was served on July 14, 2026, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on July 14, 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) (in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026), because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) (in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on July 14, 2026. II.

Service of the OACR on the parties was not properly effectuated until June 12, 2026, extending the time to file the petition for reconsideration and making defendant's June 30, 2026 filing timely.

From the decision · page 6as all parties of record. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 § 10628(a).) Thus, service can be delegated as to orders with respect to issues not in dispute, such as a settlement by either Stipulations with Request for Award or settlement by Compromise and Release, as is the case here. Here, the WCJ served defendant with the OACR and designated defendant to serve the OACR on all parties of record, pursuant to WCAB Rule 10629(a). Thus, while defendant was served with the OACR on June 3, 2026, service was not properly effectuated on the parties until June 12, 2026. Further, we note that service of defendant’s adjusting agency was at an address outside of California.