What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration and Petition for Removal dismissed as untimely.
Petition for Reconsideration and Petition for Removal filed and dismissed as untimely.
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 one day after the 25-day deadline from the WCJ's decision service date, making it untimely and subject to dismissal.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ's decision was served on September 21, 2021. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Monday, October 18, 2021 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on October 19, 2021 is untimely and will be dismissed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
WCJ's decision was served on September 21, 2021.
Favours neutral
This date started the 25-day period to file a petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ's decision was served on September 21, 2021. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Monday, October 18, 2021 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on October 19, 2021 is untimely and will be dismissed.
Petition for reconsideration was filed on October 19, 2021, one day after the deadline of October 18, 2021.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Filing after the deadline rendered the petition untimely and subject to dismissal.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ's decision was served on September 21, 2021. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Monday, October 18, 2021 to file a timely petition. Therefore, the Petition filed on October 19, 2021 is untimely and will be dismissed.
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, former § 10507(a)(1), now § 10605(a)(1)
25 days allowed to file a petition for reconsideration from a final decision served by mail in California.
The petition was filed after the 25-day deadline, thus untimely.
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, former § 10507(a)(1), now § 10605(a)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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, former § 10508, now § 10600 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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, former § 10845(a), now § 10940(a); former § 10392(a), now § 10615(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) In addition, a Petition for Reconsideration filed via EAMS1 is deemed filed on the date received by the Appeals Board if it is received prior to 5:00 p.m. on a court day. (Cal. Code Regs.,
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10508, now § 10600
Time limit extended to next business day if deadline falls on weekend or holiday.
The deadline was extended to the next business day, making the last timely day October 18, 2021.
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, former § 10507(a)(1), now § 10605(a)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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, former § 10508, now § 10600 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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, former § 10845(a), now § 10940(a); former § 10392(a), now § 10615(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) In addition, a Petition for Reconsideration filed via EAMS1 is deemed filed on the date received by the Appeals Board if it is received prior to 5:00 p.m. on a court day. (Cal. Code Regs.,
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10845(a), now § 10940(a); former § 10392(a), now § 10615(b)
Petition must be received by WCAB within allowed time; mailing proof insufficient.
The petition was filed on October 19, 2021, one day late, thus untimely.
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, former § 10507(a)(1), now § 10605(a)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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, former § 10508, now § 10600 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) 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, former § 10845(a), now § 10940(a); former § 10392(a), now § 10615(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) In addition, a Petition for Reconsideration filed via EAMS1 is deemed filed on the date received by the Appeals Board if it is received prior to 5:00 p.m. on a court day. (Cal. Code Regs.,
Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076
The time limit for filing a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional; untimely petitions cannot be considered.
The untimely filing deprived the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider the petition.
From the decision · page 2This 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].)
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.