What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed as untimely and unverified.
Petition for Reconsideration filed March 20, 2025, challenging WCJ Findings of Fact issued December 13, 2024; petition dismissed as untimely and unverified.
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 on March 20, 2025, after the January 7, 2025 deadline and was unverified, thus untimely and unverified, requiring dismissal.
From the decision · page 3II. There are 20 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903.) This time is extended by 5 calendar days if service is made to an address within California. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) 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) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (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 & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact on December 13, 2024 and all of the parties served were located in California. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until January 7, 2025 to seek reconsideration on a timely basis. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 20, 2025 is untimely and will be dismissed. We also note that section 5902 requires that a petition for reconsideration be verified. (Lab. Code, § 5902; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510(d).) In Lucena v.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition for Reconsideration was filed on March 20, 2025, after the January 7, 2025 deadline for timely filing.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact established the petition was untimely, requiring dismissal under Labor Code section 5909.
From the decision · page 3II. There are 20 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903.) This time is extended by 5 calendar days if service is made to an address within California. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) 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) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (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 & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact on December 13, 2024 and all of the parties served were located in California. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until January 7, 2025 to seek reconsideration on a timely basis. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 20, 2025 is untimely and will be dismissed. We also note that section 5902 requires that a petition for reconsideration be verified. (Lab. Code, § 5902; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510(d).) In Lucena v.
The Petition for Reconsideration was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of verification justified dismissal as the petitioner did not cure the defect or provide explanation.
From the decision · page 3Diablo Auto Body (2000) 65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1425 (Significant Panel Decision), it was held that where a petition for reconsideration is not verified as required by section 5902, the petition may be dismissed if the petitioner has been given notice of the defect (either by the WCJ's Report or by the respondent's answer) unless, within a reasonable time, the petitioner either: (1) cures the defect by filing a verification; or (2) files an explanation that establishes a compelling reason for the lack of verification and the record establishes that the respondents are not prejudiced by the lack of verification. Here, the Petition for Reconsideration is not verified and notice of this defect was specifically given in both the WCJ's Report and by the defendant's Answer. Moreover, a reasonable period of time has elapsed, but petitioner has neither cured the defect by filing a verification nor offered an explanation of why a verification cannot be filed.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5900, 5902, 5903, 5909; California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 10510(d), 10600(b), 10605(a)(1)
A petition for reconsideration must be filed within 20 days of a final decision, extended by 5 days if served within California, and must be verified.
The petition was filed late and unverified, thus dismissed.
From the decision · page 3II. There are 20 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903.) This time is extended by 5 calendar days if service is made to an address within California. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) 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) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (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 & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].) In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact on December 13, 2024 and all of the parties served were located in California. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until January 7, 2025 to seek reconsideration on a timely basis. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 20, 2025 is untimely and will be dismissed. We also note that section 5902 requires that a petition for reconsideration be verified. (Lab. Code, § 5902; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510(d).) In Lucena 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.