What the panel ordered
Dismissed all petitions for reconsideration filed by applicant as improper and untimely due to lack of final orders or decisions to review.
Applicant filed multiple petitions for reconsideration seeking review of decisions dated March 13, 2026 and April 1, 2026, but no such final decisions were found in the record. The last final decision was a Findings and Award on November 14, 2025, which was affirmed on March 3, 2026. The petitions for reconsideration were untimely or improper as no final orders existed for review.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 3, 2026.
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.
Applicant's petitions for reconsideration were dismissed because no final orders or decisions existed for review, and the petitions were untimely or improper under Labor Code sections 5909 and 5903.
From the decision · page 1Applicant, who now represents himself, has filed numerous documents captioned "Petition for Reconsideration" purportedly seeking reconsideration of decisions issued on March 13, 2026 or April 1, 2026. As explained below, the record does not reveal any final orders, decisions, or awards issued on either date. In this matter, in a Findings and Award of November 14, 2025, it was found that while employed on June 26, 2021 as a handyman, applicant sustained industrial injury to his right knee, right leg, left hip and low back causing permanent total (100%) disability. Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's November 14, 2025 decision, which we denied on March 3, 2026.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No final orders, decisions, or awards were issued on March 13, 2026 or April 1, 2026 as claimed by applicant.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without a final order or decision, a petition for reconsideration is improper and must be dismissed.
From the decision · page 1Applicant, who now represents himself, has filed numerous documents captioned "Petition for Reconsideration" purportedly seeking reconsideration of decisions issued on March 13, 2026 or April 1, 2026. As explained below, the record does not reveal any final orders, decisions, or awards issued on either date. In this matter, in a Findings and Award of November 14, 2025, it was found that while employed on June 26, 2021 as a handyman, applicant sustained industrial injury to his right knee, right leg, left hip and low back causing permanent total (100%) disability. Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's November 14, 2025 decision, which we denied on March 3, 2026.
The last final decision was the Findings and Award of November 14, 2025, which was affirmed on March 3, 2026.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Applicant's petitions for reconsideration were untimely as they were not filed within 20 days plus 5 days for service of the last final decision.
From the decision · page 3However, since applicant did not file a petition for reconsideration withing 20 days (plus five days for service) of the WCJ's November 14, 2025 decision, any petition for reconsideration is untimely. Labor Code section 5900 makes clear that the Appeals Board has no discretion to entertain untimely petitions, and mandates that a petition shall be made "only within the time... specified in [Labor Code section 5903]." (Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 548-549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73] ["the provisions of [Labor Code sections 5900 and 5903] are mandatory and jurisdictional"].)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5903
A petition for reconsideration must seek review of a prior final order, decision or award and be filed within the time limits specified in Labor Code section 5903.
Applicant's petitions did not meet these requirements as no final decisions existed for review and were untimely.
From the decision · page 3or denying compensation, or arising out of or incidental thereto, any person aggrieved thereby may petition for reconsideration upon one or more of the following grounds and no other:
Labor Code section 5909
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board, as required by Labor Code section 5909(a).
The Board acted timely on the petitions within the 60-day period starting from April 24, 2026 transmission date.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on April 24, 2026 and 60 days from the date of transmission is June 23, 2026. This decision is issued by or on June 23, 2026, so we have timely acted on the petition as required by Labor Code section 5909(a).
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.