What the panel ordered
The Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant was dismissed as the defendant was not aggrieved by the WCJ's decision.p. 5
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings, Orders, and Awards issued by the WCJ on June 9, 2026, which was denied by the WCAB.
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.
Defendant was not aggrieved by the WCJ's decision and thus lacked standing to seek reconsideration; the petition was dismissed as untimely and without merit.
From the decision · page 5aggrieved by the WCJ’s decision. Since defendant here is not “aggrieved directly or indirectly” by the FO&A, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the FO&A issued by the WCJ on June 9, 2026 is DISMISSED.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant discovered a possible unemployment insurance lien after the WCJ issued the FO&A.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This discovery was the basis for the Petition for Reconsideration but did not affect the applicant's entitlement to benefits.
From the decision · page 2Then, Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration dated June 24, 2026, contending while preparing to issue payment for temporary disability benefits per the Awards it emailed EDD to confirm whether there were any liens and learned that Applicant had an unemployment claim. In the Petition for Reconsideration, Defendant contends it sent a follow-up email requesting confirmation of a lien and information regarding benefits paid but did not receive a response.
Employment Development Department did not file a lien for unemployment benefits.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without a filed lien, the defendant was not aggrieved by the WCJ's decision and lacked standing to seek reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2The Employment Development Department (“EDD”) did not file a lien for unemployment benefits.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, § 5909
A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon by the Appeals Board within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board.
The Appeals Board acted within 60 days of transmission, making the petition timely.
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION I. Up through July 1, 2024, petitions for reconsideration were subject to former Labor Code section 5909 1, which provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the 0F
Lab. Code, § 5900(a)
Any person aggrieved by a final order may petition the appeals board for reconsideration.
Defendant was not aggrieved by the WCJ's decision and thus lacked standing to seek reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4(in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026) provides that service of the Report and Recommendation shall be notice of transmission. Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on July 2, 2026, and the cases were transmitted to the Appeals Board on July 2, 2026. Service of the Report and transmission of the cases to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) (in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026), because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) (in effect from July 2, 2024 through June 30, 2026) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on July 2, 2026. II. Section 5900(a) provides in pertinent part that: Any person aggrieved directly or indirectly by any final order, decision, or award made and filed by the appeals board or a workers' compensation judge under any provision contained in this division, may petition the appeals board for reconsideration in respect to any matters determined or covered by the final order, decision, or award, and specified in the petition for reconsideration.
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.