What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed on April 8, 2024.
Petition for Reconsideration filed on February 28, 2024, dismissed as it did not seek reconsideration of a final order, decision, or 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 dismissed because the admonishment was not a final order, decision, or award subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Decision) issued on February 28, 2024, by the Appeals Board. In the Opinion portion of our Decision, in pertinent part, we admonished applicant's attorney, Juan Armenta of English Lloyd & Armenta, that as an officer of the court, he may not include material misstatements of fact in verified petitions before a court and that such conduct may subject him to sanctions. (See § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The decision after reconsideration rescinded the Joint Findings, Award and Orders of July 8, 2020, and returned the matter to the trial level, making the order non-final.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because the order was non-final, the petition for reconsideration was not proper under Labor Code section 5900.
From the decision · page 245 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders"].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues. As our decision after reconsideration, we rescinded the Joint Findings, Award and Orders of July 8, 2020, and returned the matter to the trial level. We stated in our order that when the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issues a new decision, any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration. The Decision did not give rise to an enforceable final order under Labor Code section 5806, and the right to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900 will arise when the WCJ issues a new decision. Thus, the order issued by us was a non-final order.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.
The decision held that the order was non-final and thus not subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (Decision) issued on February 28, 2024, by the Appeals Board. In the Opinion portion of our Decision, in pertinent part, we admonished applicant's attorney, Juan Armenta of English Lloyd & Armenta, that as an officer of the court, he may not include material misstatements of fact in verified petitions before a court and that such conduct may subject him to sanctions. (See § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421
An admonishment is "a firm warning or reprimand" and is not an order, decision, or award.
The decision explained that the admonishment was not a final order and thus not subject to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2Here, counsel seeks reconsideration of an admonishment contained within the text of our opinion. An admonishment is "a firm warning or reprimand". ("Admonishment", Google Dictionary, retrieved March 28, 2024, from http://www.google.com.) An admonishment is not an order, decision, or award. Accordingly, to the extent that counsel seeks reconsideration, the petition 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.