What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed as untimely.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's February 16, 2024 Joint Findings of Fact & Award.
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 more than 25 days after service of the WCJ's decision and was therefore untimely.
From the decision · page 2The Petition in this matter was filed on March 13, 2024. This was more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ's February 16, 2024, Joint Findings of Fact & Award which was served on all parties contained in the Official Address Record and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The petition for reconsideration was filed on March 13, 2024, more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ's February 16, 2024 decision.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lateness rendered the petition untimely and deprived the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider it.
From the decision · page 2The Petition in this matter was filed on March 13, 2024. This was more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ's February 16, 2024, Joint Findings of Fact & Award which was served on all parties contained in the Official Address Record and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, the petitioner might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.
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); Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549.
A petition for reconsideration must be filed with the WCAB within 25 days of service of a final decision by mail upon an address in California; proof of mailing is insufficient, and the time limit is jurisdictional.
The Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration.
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).)
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.