What the panel ordered
The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as untimely filed beyond the allowed period.p. 3
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration on May 11, 2026, challenging a decision allegedly issued on December 26, 2001. The WCJ issued a Report recommending denial of the Petition, and the Appeals Board reviewed the Petition and the WCJ's 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 Petition was filed on May 11, 2026, challenging a decision allegedly issued on December 26, 2001, which was untimely as the filing deadline was January 25, 2002. Therefore, the Petition was dismissed as untimely.
From the decision · page 38, §§ 10940(a), 10615(b).) 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. Hagler (1989) 211 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].) In this case, applicant contends she is aggrieved by a decision that was filed on December 26, 2001. However, we are unable to locate any decision that was issued on this date. Even if there was, based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, January 25, 2002, to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on May 11, 2026 is untimely and must be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Petition for Reconsideration was filed on May 11, 2026, challenging a decision allegedly issued on December 26, 2001.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The filing was untimely as the deadline to file was January 25, 2002, making the Petition subject to dismissal.
From the decision · page 38, §§ 10940(a), 10615(b).) 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. Hagler (1989) 211 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].) In this case, applicant contends she is aggrieved by a decision that was filed on December 26, 2001. However, we are unable to locate any decision that was issued on this date. Even if there was, based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, January 25, 2002, to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on May 11, 2026 is untimely and must be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10600, 10605, 10940
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within 25 days of service of the final decision, extended to 30 days if served outside California but within the U.S., and must be received by the WCAB within that time; proof of mailing is insufficient.
The Petition filed on May 11, 2026 was beyond the allowed filing period for a decision allegedly issued on December 26, 2001, thus untimely and dismissed.
From the decision · page 38, §§ 10940(a), 10615(b).) 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. Hagler (1989) 211 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].) In this case, applicant contends she is aggrieved by a decision that was filed on December 26, 2001. However, we are unable to locate any decision that was issued on this date. Even if there was, based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, January 25, 2002, to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on May 11, 2026 is untimely and must be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration.
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.