What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration/removal dismissed
Petition for removal filed February 14, 2024, challenging WCJ Findings and Order of February 5, 2024; WCJ rescinded original order and issued amended order on February 22, 2024, rendering petition moot
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 WCJ's Findings and Order contained a final order on injury, so the petition is treated as one for reconsideration; the WCJ rescinded the original order within the 15-day jurisdiction period, rendering the petition moot; therefore, the petition was dismissed.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal in response to the Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 5, 2024, wherein the WCJ found that while employed by defendant on March 15, 2021, applicant sustained injury to her lumbar spine; and that applicant's injury caused permanent disability but that the opinions of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) were not substantial evidence on the issue of apportionment. The WCJ ordered that the parties return to the QME for further reporting on the issue of apportionment.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's Findings and Order of February 5, 2024 contained a final order that applicant sustained industrial injury.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This made the petition for removal a petition for reconsideration under the law, affecting the procedural posture and outcome.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks removal in response to the Findings and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 5, 2024, wherein the WCJ found that while employed by defendant on March 15, 2021, applicant sustained injury to her lumbar spine; and that applicant's injury caused permanent disability but that the opinions of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) were not substantial evidence on the issue of apportionment. The WCJ ordered that the parties return to the QME for further reporting on the issue of apportionment.
The WCJ rescinded the original order and issued an amended order within the 15-day jurisdiction period after the petition was filed.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This action rendered the petition moot and led to its dismissal.
From the decision · page 1Subsequently, after applicant filed her Petition on February 14, 2024, the WCJ issued an "Order Rescinding and Vacating Submission to Develop the Medical Record" on February 22, 2024.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5904
Failure to timely petition for reconsideration of a final decision bars later challenge to the propriety of the decision before the WCAB or court of appeal.
The WCJ's Findings and Order contained a final order on injury, so the petition is treated as one for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2statute of limitations issues. (See Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658, 662 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 1122].) Failure to timely petition for reconsideration of a final decision bars later challenge to the propriety of the decision before the WCAB or court of appeal. (See Lab. Code, § 5904.) Alternatively, non-final decisions may later be challenged by a petition for reconsideration once a final decision issues.
WCAB Rule 10961 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10961)
Jurisdiction remains with the district office for 15 days after timely filing of a petition for reconsideration; the WCJ may rescind the order within this period, rendering the petition moot.
The WCJ rescinded the original order within the 15-day jurisdiction period, rendering the petition moot.
From the decision · page 2However, WCAB Rule 10961 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961) provides that jurisdiction remains with the district office for 15 days after the timely filing of a petition for reconsideration and sets forth the following actions that a WCJ may take in response: (a) The WCJ may prepare a report and transfer jurisdiction to the Appeals Board to address the merits of the petition (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961(a); see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10962); (b) The WCJ may rescind the entire order, decision or award and initiate proceedings within 30 days (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961(b)); or (c) The WCJ may rescind the order, decision or award and issue an amended order, decision or award, and a new petition for reconsideration must be filed in response to the amended order, decision or award. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961(c).)
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.