What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed as untimely; no jurisdiction to consider petition; order rejecting declaration of readiness to proceed not disturbed.
Petition for reconsideration filed by applicant seeking to set aside dismissal order and order rejecting declaration of readiness to proceed; WCJ issued dismissal order on May 4, 2017; petition found untimely and dismissed by WCAB panel on July 15, 2025.
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 petition for reconsideration was filed more than a year after the applicant received the dismissal order, exceeding the 25-day filing deadline, making it untimely and jurisdictionally barred.
From the decision · page 4The Petition for Reconsideration in this matter was filed on May 7, 2025. Thus, the filing date of the petition was more than a year after the service of the Dismissal Order on April 17, 2024, and well over the 25 days permitted by law. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) It was also well beyond any extension of time applicant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and subject to dismissal. As the time limit for filing a reconsideration petition is jurisdictional, we have no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1076; Rymer v. Hagler, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1182; Scott, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d at p. 984; Hinojoza, supra, 201 Cal.App.2d at p. 549.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant received the dismissal order on April 17, 2024, when defendant provided a copy by email, not on the original service date in 2017.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This date triggered the start of the 25-day period to file a petition for reconsideration, making the petition filed on May 7, 2025 untimely.
From the decision · page 4April 17, 2024. (Petition, at p. 3.) Where an order can be shown to have been defectively served, the time limit begins to run as of the date of receipt of the order. (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Phillips) (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 1193].) To ensure that due process is provided, we accept applicant's contention that he was not adequately served on May 4, 2017, and we will treat April 17, 2024 as the service date for the Dismissal Order.
The petition for reconsideration was filed on May 7, 2025, more than a year after the applicant received the dismissal order and well beyond the 25-day filing deadline.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The untimeliness deprived the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider the petition, leading to dismissal.
From the decision · page 4The Petition for Reconsideration in this matter was filed on May 7, 2025. Thus, the filing date of the petition was more than a year after the service of the Dismissal Order on April 17, 2024, and well over the 25 days permitted by law. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) It was also well beyond any extension of time applicant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and subject to dismissal. As the time limit for filing a reconsideration petition is jurisdictional, we have no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1076; Rymer v. Hagler, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1182; Scott, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d at p. 984; Hinojoza, supra, 201 Cal.App.2d at p. 549.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10600, 10605, 10940
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within 25 days of service of the final decision to be timely; the time limit is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by the Appeals Board.
The petition was filed more than a year after the applicant received the dismissal order, thus untimely and subject to dismissal.
From the decision · page 4The Petition for Reconsideration in this matter was filed on May 7, 2025. Thus, the filing date of the petition was more than a year after the service of the Dismissal Order on April 17, 2024, and well over the 25 days permitted by law. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) It was also well beyond any extension of time applicant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration is untimely and subject to dismissal. As the time limit for filing a reconsideration petition is jurisdictional, we have no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1076; Rymer v. Hagler, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1182; Scott, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d at p. 984; Hinojoza, supra, 201 Cal.App.2d at p. 549.)
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.