What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed as untimely.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's decision served July 11, 2025; the Appeals Board reviewed the petition and record.
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 filed after 5:00 p.m. on the last permissible day, so it was deemed filed the next court day and thus untimely.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ's decision was served on July 11, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Tuesday, August 5, 2025 to file a timely petition. EAMS reflects that defendant filed the Petition for Reconsideration on August 5, 2025 at "18:32" (i.e., 6:32 p.m.). Therefore, it was deemed untimely filed on August 6, 2025 and will be dismissed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition for Reconsideration was filed via EAMS at 6:32 p.m. on August 5, 2025, after the 5:00 p.m. deadline.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This caused the petition to be deemed filed on August 6, 2025, making it untimely under the jurisdictional deadline.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ's decision was served on July 11, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Tuesday, August 5, 2025 to file a timely petition. EAMS reflects that defendant filed the Petition for Reconsideration on August 5, 2025 at "18:32" (i.e., 6:32 p.m.). Therefore, it was deemed untimely filed on August 6, 2025 and will be dismissed.
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 received by the WCAB within the time allowed; proof of mailing is insufficient. If filed via EAMS, it must be received before 5:00 p.m. on a court day, or it is deemed filed the next court day. The time limit is jurisdictional and cannot be extended.
The petition was filed after 5:00 p.m. and thus deemed filed the next court day, making it untimely and depriving the Board of jurisdiction to consider it.
From the decision · page 2This time limit is jurisdictional and, therefore, the Appeals Board has no authority to consider or act upon an untimely petition for reconsideration. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1076 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650]; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
EAMS electronic filing timestamp showed petition was received at 6:32 p.m. on August 5, 2025, after the 5:00 p.m. deadline.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ's decision was served on July 11, 2025. Based on the authority cited above, petitioner had until Tuesday, August 5, 2025 to file a timely petition. EAMS reflects that defendant filed the Petition for Reconsideration on August 5, 2025 at "18:32" (i.e., 6:32 p.m.). Therefore, it was deemed untimely filed on August 6, 2025 and will be dismissed.
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.