Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Nolan v WCAB (1977) 70 Cal. App 3d 122; Bland v WCAB (1970) 3 Cal 3d 324
A petition to reopen filed within five years preserves the jurisdiction of the Appeals Board.
Applicant's claims were dismissed without prejudice, so reopening within statutory period preserved jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 4A. JURISDICTION...
[T]he dismissal on September 6, 2019 was without prejudice. In
Nolan v WCAB (1977) 70 Cal. App 3d 122, the Court of Appeal,
stated that when a party files a petition to reopen after a case has
been dismissed without prejudice, the request to reopen is a request
to have the original claim adjudicated. The WCAB retains its
original jurisdiction to adjudicate this claim. Nolan v WCAB 70 Cal.
App 3d at 127-129. ["]A petition to reopen filed by a party within
five years... preserves the jurisdiction of the Appeals Board."
Bland v WCAB (1970) 3 Cal 3d 324, 330.
Labor Code § 5901; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. WCAB (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Maranian v. WCAB (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068; Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. WCAB (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658
A petition for reconsideration challenges a final order or decision that determines a substantive right or a threshold issue fundamental to the claim for benefits.
The WCAB treated the removal petition as a petition for reconsideration because the F&O determined a threshold issue of reopening claims.
From the decision · page 6DISCUSSION
A petition for reconsideration is the mechanism by which a party may challenge a final
order, decision, or award. (Labor Code § 59001.) 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, 413]; or determines a "threshold"
issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10561, now § 10421; Labor Code § 5813
WCAB Rule 10421 authorizes monetary sanctions for bad faith conduct but does not support forfeiture of claims for failure to appear at trial.
Defendant's argument that applicant's failure to appear at trial shows bad faith and no good cause to reopen is unsupported.
From the decision · page 6(2005) 127
Cal.App.4th 275, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].)
Here, defendant filed the Petition seeking removal. However, the F&O determined an issue
fundamental to applicant's claims for benefits, i.e., the issue of whether applicant's claims should
be reopened. Thus, the F&O constitutes the determination of a threshold issue for which defendant
should have sought reconsideration. Accordingly, we will treat the Petition as one for
reconsideration and grant the Petition as one for reconsideration.
Turning first to defendant's argument that the evidence fails to establish that good cause
exists to reopen because applicant willfully failed to appear for the July 29, 2019 trial on the
AOE/COE issue, we note that the Petition cites no authority, and we are aware of none, to support
the contention that applicant may forfeit his claims based upon his alleged willful failure to appear.
Defendant alleges applicant's conduct falls within the definition of bad faith tactics set forth in
WCAB Rule 10421, but that rule authorizes the WCJ to impose monetary--and only monetary--