Filing and Service of Petitions for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification and Answers. 8 CCR § 10940

What panels did with this rule

Released decisions that named § 10940, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.

• ADJ16611684 · 2026-09-21 · Santa Ana District Office8 CCR § 10940

  Determinative passage · p.3Hagler (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, the WCJ issued the Amended Findings and Award on May 6, 2026. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Monday, June 1, 2026 to seek reconsideration. EAMS reflects that applicant filed the Petition for Reconsideration on June 26, 2026. Therefore, it was untimely filed and will be dismissed. If we were not dismissing the petition as untimely, we would deny it on the merits for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Amended Report.

  The petition was filed after the deadline and was dismissed as untimely.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11722162 · 2026-08-28 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10940

  Determinative passage · p.3Turning now to the merits of the Petition, as expressed in our numerous prior Opinions, there are twenty (20) days allowed within which to file for reconsideration from a “final” decision. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903.) This time limit is extended by five (5) calendar days to allow for service upon an address within California. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) It is further extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be considered timely, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the Appeals Board within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 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) Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v.

  The petition filed on June 26, 2026, was untimely as it was filed more than 20 days after the June 13, 2025 decision, and was also successive and duplicative.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ745798 · 2026-07-20 · Salinas District Office8 CCR § 10940

  Determinative passage · p.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 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.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12831745 · 2026-07-20 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10940

  Determinative passage · p.3however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 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, the WCJ issued the Joint Findings of Fact and Orders on February 5, 2026. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Monday, March 2, 2026 to seek reconsideration. EAMS reflects that applicant filed the Petition for Reconsideration on April 7, 2026. Therefore, it was untimely filed and will be dismissed. If we were not dismissing the petition as untimely, we would deny it on the merits for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report.

  The petition was filed on April 7, 2026, after the March 2, 2026 deadline, thus untimely.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12333976 · 2026-06-08 · Riverside District Office8 CCR § 10940

  Determinative passage · p.7Turning now to the merits of the Petitions, we remind the parties that there are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that 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.) To be considered timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 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].)

  Applied to dismiss defendant's untimely petition for reconsideration of the February 1, 2021 Findings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ9108437 · 2025-10-21 · San Jose District Office8 CCR § 10940

  Determinative passage · p.4II. Preliminarily, we observe that section 5905 requires the party seeking reconsideration to serve the petition upon all adverse parties. (§ 5905.) Failure to file proof of service may constitute grounds for dismissing the petition. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940.) Here, the Petition indicates that it was mailed to Union Bank at 1251 Avenue Of The Americas, New York, NY 10020, Gallagher Bassett at P.O. Box 85013, San Diego, CA, 92186, and defendant's attorney Wai Connor at 2255 Contra Costa Blvd., Pleasant Hill, CA 94523. (Petition for Reconsideration, p. 3.) These addresses do not conform with those in the OAR, which lists Union Bank's address as 2000 Portola Ave, Livermore, CA 94551; Gallagher Bassett's as P.O. Box 2934, Clinton, IA 52733, and Wai Connor's as 2566 Overland Ave, Ste. 570, Los Angeles, CA 90064. Therefore, we admonish applicant to comply with all service requirements applicable to these proceedings.

  Applicant failed to serve the petition at the correct addresses, leading to admonishment and dismissal.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ771417 · 2025-07-25 · San Diego District Office8 CCR § 10940

  Determinative passage · p.2II. There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that 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.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 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)

  The petition was filed after the 25-day period and the Appeals Board dismissed it as untimely.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ2606119 · 2025-07-15 · Anaheim District Office8 CCR § 10940

  Determinative passage · p.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 petition was filed more than a year after the applicant received the dismissal order, thus untimely and subject to dismissal.

  Official decision · page 4 →