What the panel ordered
The Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant is denied.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration on April 17, 2023, contending new evidence of increased impairment since the March 10, 2020 Joint Findings and Award; the WCAB denied the petition.
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 denied because the new evidence of increased impairment was not raised in a timely petition for reconsideration and was more akin to a petition for new and further disability, which was not properly before the Board.
From the decision · page 1Previously, we issued our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Opinion) on March 29, 2023. On April 17, 2023, applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration, on the basis that he had new evidence that he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence. (Lab. Code, § 5903(d).) Applicant contends that the level of his impairment has increased since the Joint Findings and Award (F&A) of March 10, 2020.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's petition raised new evidence of increased permanent disability impairment after the March 10, 2020 Joint Findings and Award.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The Board denied the petition because this new evidence was not raised in a timely petition for reconsideration and was more akin to a petition for new and further disability, which was not properly before the Board.
From the decision · page 1Previously, we issued our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Opinion) on March 29, 2023. On April 17, 2023, applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration, on the basis that he had new evidence that he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence. (Lab. Code, § 5903(d).) Applicant contends that the level of his impairment has increased since the Joint Findings and Award (F&A) of March 10, 2020.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5903(d)
Petition for reconsideration must be timely and based on new evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence.
Applicant's petition was denied because the new evidence was not raised in a timely petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Previously, we issued our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Opinion) on March 29, 2023. On April 17, 2023, applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration, on the basis that he had new evidence that he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence. (Lab. Code, § 5903(d).) Applicant contends that the level of his impairment has increased since the Joint Findings and Award (F&A) of March 10, 2020.
Zurich Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cairo) (1973) 9 Cal.3d 848
The Board has continuing jurisdiction to reconsider cases including petitions for new and further disability.
The petition was more akin to a petition for new and further disability, which was not properly before the Board on reconsideration.
From the decision · page 3A Petition for New and Further Disability pursuant to Labor Code section 5410 derives from the Appeals Board's authority "to make awards for new and further disability caused by an earlier industrial injury..." (Zurich Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cairo) (1973) 9 Cal.3d 848, 854-858 [109 Cal.Rptr. 211, 512 P.2d 843] (conc. opn. of Sullivan, J.).) On the other hand, sections 5803 and 5804, "together with section 5805 define the power of the Board to rescind, alter or amend previous awards of compensation where "good cause" is shown." (Ibid.; see also Sarabi v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 920 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 778] (Sarabi); Nicky Blair's Rest. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
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.