What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed as untimely and successive.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration and supplemental pleadings, which the Appeals Board reviewed along with the WCJ's Report and Recommendation.
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 for Reconsideration was filed after the statutory deadline and was a successive petition without new grounds; the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider untimely or successive petitions unless the party is newly aggrieved.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings and Order on September 6, 2022. Based on the authority cited, above, applicant had until Monday, October 3, 2022 to seek reconsideration on a timely basis. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 11, 2023 is untimely and subject to dismissal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Petition for Reconsideration was filed on January 11, 2023, after the deadline of October 3, 2022, following the WCJ's Findings and Order issued on September 6, 2022.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Filing after the statutory deadline deprived the Board of jurisdiction to consider the petition.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings and Order on September 6, 2022. Based on the authority cited, above, applicant had until Monday, October 3, 2022 to seek reconsideration on a timely basis. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 11, 2023 is untimely and subject to dismissal.
Applicant had previously filed two other untimely Petitions for Reconsideration and was not newly aggrieved.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Successive petitions are not permitted unless the party is newly aggrieved; applicant was not.
From the decision · page 2We note that this is the third untimely Petition for Reconsideration being filed by applicant. We advise applicant that repetitive, meritless, and ineffectual filings may lead to proceedings for the purpose of declaring applicant as a vexatious litigant pursuant to WCAB rule 10430. WCAB Rule 10430 states in its totality as follows:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10605(a)(1), 10600, 10940(a), 10615(b)
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within 25 days of a final decision served by mail in California; this time limit is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by proof of mailing alone.
The applicant's petition was filed after the deadline, so the Board lacks authority to consider it.
From the decision · page 1There 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).)
Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604, 611; Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 155, 159; Crowe Glass Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal.App.287, 293-295; Navarro v. A & A Framing (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, 299
The Board will not entertain a successive petition for reconsideration unless the party is newly aggrieved.
Applicant was not newly aggrieved and had previously filed untimely petitions, so the successive petition is not permitted.
From the decision · page 2In addition, it is well settled that where a party fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration, the Appeals Board will not entertain a successive petition by that party unless the party is newly aggrieved. (Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604, 611 [8 Cal.Comp.Cases 177]; Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 155, 159 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 382]; Crowe Glass Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal.App.287, 293-295 [14 IAC 221].). As stated in our en banc opinion in Navarro v. A & A Framing (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, 299:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was filed after the statutory deadline and was the third such untimely petition, with no new grounds presented.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings and Order on September 6, 2022. Based on the authority cited, above, applicant had until Monday, October 3, 2022 to seek reconsideration on a timely basis. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 11, 2023 is untimely and subject to dismissal.
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.