What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed as successive and untimely.
Petition for Reconsideration filed on April 1, 2022, successive to prior petitions filed on December 8, 2011 and July 31, 2013, reviewed by the Appeals Board.
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 dismissed because it was successive to prior petitions and untimely under the statutory 25-day filing period, which is jurisdictional and strictly enforced.
From the decision · page 1On February 3, 2012 and September 20, 2013, we issued Orders Denying applicant's Petitions for Reconsideration filed on December 8, 2011 and July 31, 2013, respectively. Applicant subsequently filed this Petition for Reconsideration on April 1, 2022. Based on our review of the Petition and the record in this matter, we will dismiss the Petition to the extent it is successive to the December 8, 2011 and July 31, 2013 Petitions for Reconsideration and dismiss it as untimely to the extent it makes any new allegation.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The petition was filed well beyond the 25-day statutory deadline from the prior final decisions dated November 23, 2011 and January 13, 2013.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The time limit for filing a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional and the Appeals Board has no authority to consider untimely petitions.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ issued the decisions on November 23, 2011 and January 13, 2013. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Monday, December 19, 2011; and Thursday, February 7, 2013, respectively, to seek reconsideration in a timely manner. Therefore, to the extent the current Petition for Reconsideration filed on April 1, 2022 seeks reconsideration of the WCJ's November 23, 2011 and January 13, 2013 decisions, it is untimely.
The petition for reconsideration filed on April 1, 2022 was successive to prior petitions filed on December 8, 2011 and July 31, 2013.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Successive petitions are not entertained unless the party is newly aggrieved, which was not shown here.
From the decision · page 1On February 3, 2012 and September 20, 2013, we issued Orders Denying applicant's Petitions for Reconsideration filed on December 8, 2011 and July 31, 2013, respectively. Applicant subsequently filed this Petition for Reconsideration on April 1, 2022. Based on our review of the Petition and the record in this matter, we will dismiss the Petition to the extent it is successive to the December 8, 2011 and July 31, 2013 Petitions for Reconsideration and dismiss it as untimely to the extent it makes any new allegation.
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)
25 days allowed to file a petition for reconsideration from a final decision served by mail in California; proof of mailing is insufficient, actual receipt by WCAB is required; time limit is jurisdictional and strictly enforced.
The petition filed on April 1, 2022 was untimely as it exceeded the 25-day limit from the prior decisions dated November 23, 2011 and January 13, 2013.
From the decision · page 2Moreover, there are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for reconsideration from a "final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5903; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1).) This time limit is extended to the next business day if the last day for filing falls on a weekend or holiday. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600.) To be timely, however, a petition for reconsideration must be filed with (i.e., received by) the WCAB within the time allowed; proof that the petition was mailed (posted) within that period is insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10940(a), 10615(b).)
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.