What the panel ordered
WCJ decision of March 29, 2021 rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and decision by WCJ.
Petition for reconsideration filed by defendant on April 7, 2021; WCAB did not act by June 7, 2021 due to clerical error; time to act tolled; case returned to trial level for WCJ to consider proposed settlement.
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 Appeals Board found the defendant's petition was timely filed and the Board's failure to act was due to a clerical error, thus tolling the time to act on the petition.
From the decision · page 1We first note that defendant's petition was verified and timely filed on April 7, 2021. Although we did not act upon the petition by June 7, 2021 as required by section 5909, it was through no fault of defendant. We believe that "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Appeals Board had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. The Appeals Board did not act on applicant's petition because it had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Like the Court in Shipley, "we are not convinced that the burden of the system's inadequacies should fall on [a party]." (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Therefore, considering that defendant filed a timely petition and that the WCAB's failure to act was due to a clerical error by the district office, we find that our time to act on the petition is tolled.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant's petition for reconsideration was timely filed on April 7, 2021.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Established the petition was timely and triggered the Board's duty to act.
From the decision · page 1We first note that defendant's petition was verified and timely filed on April 7, 2021. Although we did not act upon the petition by June 7, 2021 as required by section 5909, it was through no fault of defendant. We believe that "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Appeals Board had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. The Appeals Board did not act on applicant's petition because it had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Like the Court in Shipley, "we are not convinced that the burden of the system's inadequacies should fall on [a party]." (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Therefore, considering that defendant filed a timely petition and that the WCAB's failure to act was due to a clerical error by the district office, we find that our time to act on the petition is tolled.
The Board did not act on the petition by June 7, 2021 due to a clerical error by the district office.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Board's failure to act was not the fault of the defendant, justifying tolling of the time to act.
From the decision · page 1We first note that defendant's petition was verified and timely filed on April 7, 2021. Although we did not act upon the petition by June 7, 2021 as required by section 5909, it was through no fault of defendant. We believe that "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Appeals Board had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. The Appeals Board did not act on applicant's petition because it had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Like the Court in Shipley, "we are not convinced that the burden of the system's inadequacies should fall on [a party]." (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Therefore, considering that defendant filed a timely petition and that the WCAB's failure to act was due to a clerical error by the district office, we find that our time to act on the petition is tolled.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104
Time to act on petition for reconsideration is tolled during period of Board's clerical error.
The Board applied the Shipley case to toll the time to act on defendant's petition due to clerical error.
From the decision · page 1We first note that defendant's petition was verified and timely filed on April 7, 2021. Although we did not act upon the petition by June 7, 2021 as required by section 5909, it was through no fault of defendant. We believe that "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Appeals Board had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. The Appeals Board did not act on applicant's petition because it had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Like the Court in Shipley, "we are not convinced that the burden of the system's inadequacies should fall on [a party]." (Shipley, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1108.) Therefore, considering that defendant filed a timely petition and that the WCAB's failure to act was due to a clerical error by the district office, we find that our time to act on the petition is tolled.
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.