WCAB petition for reconsideration deadline

What the Appeals Board said about this deadline

Newest released decisions whose stated standard names § 5903, each with the passage it turned on and the official PDF. Litigated tail, not a count of how often the deadline is missed.

• ADJ19086907 · 2026-09-14 · Marina Del Rey District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.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.

  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.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ18995801 · 2026-09-10 · Anaheim District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.4(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 654, 662 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 624]; DiFusco, supra, 90 Cal.Comp.Cases __.) In the event that the statutory provisions of the Labor Code are not adequate or convenient, “on appropriate motion and on appropriate showing of good cause, the trial judge has and should exercise the authority conferred on him by § [10330] of our rules to issue such interlocutory orders relating to discovery as he determines are necessary to insure the full and fair adjudication of the matter before him, to expedite litigation and to safeguard against unfair surprise.” (Hardesty v. Mccord & Holdren (1976) 41 Cal.Comp.Cases 111, 114) While the WCJ does have the power to resolve and encourage discovery, here there was no hearing on the issue of document production and no record created. Section 5313 requires a WCJ to state the “reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made.” The WCJ’s opinion on decision “enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753,

  The Board found the WCJ's order lacked a record and reasons, making it impossible to review or support the decision.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ2513477 · 2026-09-08 · Oakland District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.4A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a “final” order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A “final” order has been defined as one that either “determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case” (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a “threshold” issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers’ compensation proceedings, are not considered “final” orders. (Id. at p. 1075 [“interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final’”]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 [“[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders”]; Kramer, supra, at p.

  The PWCJ’s June 22, 2026 Minute Order was not a final order as it resolved only an interlocutory procedural issue.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ21618015 · 2026-09-08 · Anaheim District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.7(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, 1011]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73, 75-76].) Here, the order issued by the WCJ was a continuance, which is not a final order. Furthermore, applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration was filed well beyond 25 days from the issuance of the April 2026 minutes. Thus, to the extent that applicant seeks reconsideration, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

  The continuance order was not final; petition was filed late; petition dismissed.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ12719177 · 2026-09-04 · Van Nuys District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.4The attachment of these documents to the Petition is procedurally improper. California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10945, subdivision (c)(2) – (3), expressly prohibits the filing with a petition for reconsideration of “documents previously received in evidence or rejected upon objection” or “new documentary evidence,” except as permitted by Labor Code section 5903, subdivision (d). To proceed under section 5903(d), the petitioner must establish that the evidence is material and that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and produced at the trial. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10974 [petition to introduce new evidence].)

  Applied to disregard new documentary evidence attached to petition for reconsideration and reject petition on procedural grounds.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ21161039 · 2026-09-04 · Santa Ana District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.2II. Petitioner claims that the record lacks substantial medical evidence in support of a finding of injury AOE/COE. Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Pursuant to section 5705, the “burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding the affirmative of the issue.” (Lab. Code, § 5705.) “All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Lab. Code §3202.5.) “A lien claimant... has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim is industrial....” (Hand Rehabilitation Center v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.

  The WCJ found Dr. Nikakhtar’s medical opinion met these standards and constituted substantial evidence of injury AOE/COE.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12006252 · 2026-09-04 · Los Angeles District Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.2Turning now to the merits of the Petition, as the Appeals Board previously explained in their February 9, 2026 Opinion, 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), former 10507(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, former 10508.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed (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), former 10845(a); 10615(a), former 10392(a).) This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to act upon or consider an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal. Comp. Cases 650, 656]; Rymer v.

  The petition was received 147 days after the prior decision was served, thus untimely and not subject to consideration by the Appeals Board.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ18246803 · 2026-08-28 · Los Angeles Office§ 5903

  Determinative passage · p.6Engelberg did refer to this incident twice, but both times he mischaracterized it as an “altercation,” which suggests that it was a two-way argument between applicant and her supervisor, and not the veiled unilateral threat from the supervisor described in applicant’s testimony. (Id., at pp. 90, 92.) Thus, it appears that Dr. Engelberg’s understanding of both the timing and nature of the incident that took place on September 22, 2021 is limited to that which Dr. Zlotolow reported. Any decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Substantial evidence must be based upon an adequate history that includes all germane facts. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2007) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620 (Appeals Board en banc); Hegglin v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93]; Place v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases

  The WCAB found the medical opinions lacked substantial evidence due to incorrect dates and remanded for further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 6 →