What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings treating petition as objection to Notice of Intention to Dismiss Case.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant's attorney after Notice of Intention to Dismiss Case was issued by WCJ; WCJ recommended denial of petition; WCAB dismisses petition as premature and returns matter to WCJ for further proceedings.
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 premature because no final order had been issued; interlocutory procedural decisions are not final orders subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903, emphasis added.) 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
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No final order had been issued at the time the petition for reconsideration was filed.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because a petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, the petition was premature and subject to dismissal.
From the decision · page 3Here, on December 19, 2023, the WCJ issued a NIT in response to defendant's petition to dismiss. Thereafter, applicant's attorney filed the petition for reconsideration. However, no final order has issued, so that reconsideration was premature. Thus, the WCJ should consider the Petition as a timely filed objection to the NIT in the first instance.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10832(a), 10832(c)
The WCJ may issue a Notice of Intention (NIT) for various proper purposes including dismissing an application.
The NIT was issued in response to defendant's petition to dismiss; the WCAB instructed the WCJ to treat the petition for reconsideration as an objection to the NIT.
From the decision · page 3The WCJ may issue a notice of intention (NIT) for any proper purpose. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 (a).) A proper purpose includes, but is not limited to, (1) Allowing, disallowing or dismissing a lien; (2) Granting, denying or dismissing a petition; (3) Sanctioning a party; (4) Submitting the matter on the record; or (5) Dismissing an application. (Id.) Pursuant to WCAB Rule 10832 (c), if an objection is filed within the time provided, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, in its discretion may: (1) Sustain the objection; (2) Issue an order consistent with the notice of intention together with an opinion on decision; or set the matter for hearing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10832 (c).)
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award.
The petition was dismissed as premature because the Notice of Intention to Dismiss Case was not a final order.
From the decision · page 2A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903, emphasis added.) 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
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.