What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal dismissed as untimely and, alternatively, for lack of jurisdiction because the challenged order was not final.
Applicant filed a Petition for Removal challenging an arbitrator's order denying a request to reopen discovery in a carve-out case; the WCAB reviewed the petition, defendant's answer, and the arbitrator's report.
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 challenged order was not a final order; only final orders in carve-out cases are reviewable by the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 3The disputed decision in this matter only involves discovery. Accordingly, this is not a final decision upon which relief from the Appeals Board may be sought. Pursuant to the express language of section 3201.5(a)(1), applicant may only seek review from the Appeals Board of a final decision by the arbitrator.
The petition was not filed in EAMS within the 25-day period after service of the arbitrator's order, and email filing was not accepted under the Board's rules.
From the decision · page 2Applicant's Petition was initially improperly filed via email only. The Petition was not filed in EAMS until April 19, 2022. This was more than 25 days after service of the arbitrator's February 15, 2022 decision and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, applicant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition for removal was not filed in EAMS until April 19, 2022, more than 25 days after service of the arbitrator's February 15, 2022 order.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This untimeliness required dismissal of the petition under the Board's rules.
From the decision · page 2Applicant's Petition was initially improperly filed via email only. The Petition was not filed in EAMS until April 19, 2022. This was more than 25 days after service of the arbitrator's February 15, 2022 decision and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, applicant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600.
The challenged order involved only discovery and was not a final decision.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Only final orders in carve-out cases are reviewable by the Appeals Board; thus, the Board lacked jurisdiction.
From the decision · page 3The disputed decision in this matter only involves discovery. Accordingly, this is not a final decision upon which relief from the Appeals Board may be sought. Pursuant to the express language of section 3201.5(a)(1), applicant may only seek review from the Appeals Board of a final decision by the arbitrator.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10605(a)(1), 10955(a), 10600, 10615(b), 10940(a), 10940(b)
A petition for removal must be filed with the WCAB within 25 days of service of a non-final decision; proof of mailing is insufficient, and email filings are not accepted unless otherwise ordered.
Applied to dismiss the petition as untimely because it was not filed in EAMS within the required period and email filing was not accepted.
From the decision · page 1There are 25 days allowed within which to file a petition for removal from a "non-final" decision that has been served by mail upon an address in California. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10605(a)(1), 10955(a).) 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 removal 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, § 10615(b), 10940(a).)
Lab. Code, § 3201.5(a)(1)
In carve-out cases, only final orders, decisions, or awards are reviewable by the Appeals Board.
Applied to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction because the challenged order was not final.
From the decision · page 2If we were not dismissing the Petition as untimely, we would dismiss applicant's Petition for lack of jurisdiction. Section 3201.5(a)(1) permits a party in a carve-out case to seek reconsideration of a "final order, decision, or award." (Lab. Code, § 3201.5(a)(1), emphasis added).) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534- 535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold"
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.