What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed as untimely.
Petition for Reconsideration filed February 12, 2025, reviewed by WCJ's Report and Recommendation, and dismissed as untimely by the Appeals Board on April 14, 2025.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold December 29, 2023.
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 was filed on February 12, 2025, after the deadline of February 10, 2025, making it untimely and subject to dismissal under the cited authorities.
From the decision · page 3211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) 2 In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, and Award on January 16, 2025 and all of the parties served were located in California. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Monday, February 10, 2025 to seek reconsideration on a timely basis. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on February 12, 2024 is untimely and will be dismissed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Petition for Reconsideration was filed on February 12, 2025, after the deadline of February 10, 2025.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This made the petition untimely and subject to dismissal under the applicable Labor Code and regulations.
From the decision · page 3211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) 2 In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact, and Award on January 16, 2025 and all of the parties served were located in California. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Monday, February 10, 2025 to seek reconsideration on a timely basis. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on February 12, 2024 is untimely and will be dismissed.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5903, 5909; California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 10600, 10605(a)(1)
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within 20 days of a final decision, extended by 5 days if served within California, and the Appeals Board must act within 60 days of case transmission to the Appeals Board.
The petition was filed after the 20-day deadline and was dismissed as untimely. The Appeals Board acted within 60 days of case transmission.
From the decision · page 1Former 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, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
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.