What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed as untimely and successive; matter referred to Presiding WCJ for vexatious litigant consideration.p. 7
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Dismissing Reconsideration issued by the Appeals Board on June 13, 2025, which dismissed applicant’s April 3, 2025 Petition for Reconsideration as untimely and successive.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold June 13, 2025, October 14, 2024, July 1, 2024.
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 more than a year after the prior decision and was successive and duplicative of prior petitions, thus untimely and subject to dismissal.
From the decision · page 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 & 2 Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) Here, our Opinion issued on June 13, 2025. Twenty-five days from this date is July 8, 2025. Applicant therefore had until July 8, 2025 to file a petition for reconsideration. Applicant’s Petition was filed June 26, 2026. It is therefore untimely and must be dismissed. Further, to the extent that applicant once again challenges the April 9, 2024 F&O, the Petition is successive and duplicative and therefore subject to dismissal on that basis as well.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was filed on June 26, 2026, more than a year after the June 13, 2025 decision.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This filing date made the petition untimely under the 20-day filing rule for petitions for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 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 & 2 Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) Here, our Opinion issued on June 13, 2025. Twenty-five days from this date is July 8, 2025. Applicant therefore had until July 8, 2025 to file a petition for reconsideration. Applicant’s Petition was filed June 26, 2026. It is therefore untimely and must be dismissed. Further, to the extent that applicant once again challenges the April 9, 2024 F&O, the Petition is successive and duplicative and therefore subject to dismissal on that basis as well.
Applicant had previously filed petitions for reconsideration on August 12, 2024 and April 30, 2024 challenging the same April 9, 2024 Findings and Order.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The current petition was successive and duplicative of prior petitions, justifying dismissal.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Dismissing Reconsideration (Opinion) issued by the Appeals Board on June 13, 2025, which dismissed applicant’s April 3, 2025 Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) as untimely. The Petition was also found to be successive and duplicative in light of applicant’s prior August 12, 2024 and April 30, 2024 Petitions which sought reconsideration on the same basis. In the most recent Petition, applicant once again seeks to challenge the April 9, 2024 Findings and Order (F&O) which was issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). We have not received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition be dismissed and the matter be referred to the presiding workers compensation administrative law judge (PWCJ) for proceedings pursuant to WCAB Rule 10430 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 § 10430.). We have considered the allegations in the Petition and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss applicant’s Petition.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10600, 10605, 10940, 10615
Petitions for reconsideration must be filed within 20 days of a final decision, with extensions for service and weekends/holidays; untimely petitions cannot be considered.
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.
From the decision · page 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 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.