As the Legislature printed it
DIVISION 4. WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE [3200 - 6002] · PART 4. COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS [5300 - 6002] · CHAPTER 7. Reconsideration and Judicial Review [5900 - 6002] · ARTICLE 1. Reconsideration [5900 - 5911]
(a) 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 petition shall be made only within the time and in the manner specified in this chapter. (b) At any time within 60 days after the filing of an order, decision, or award made by a workers’ compensation judge and the accompanying report, the appeals board may, on its own motion, grant reconsideration.
How panels applied this section
Newest released decisions whose legal-standard extraction named this section. Each quotes the passage and links to the official PDF. Unofficial guide — not legal advice.
- ADJ18236958 · 2026-06-22 · Lodi District Office§ 5900
Determinative passage · p.4A. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) 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" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075.) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, venue, or similar issues.
Interlocutory minutes of hearing and Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions are not final orders subject to reconsideration.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ18890787 · 2026-06-15 · San Diego District Office§ 5900
Determinative passage · p.8Here, the failure of applicant to timely appeal the order finding him to be a vexatious litigant within the stated time limits precludes the Appeals Board from considering the issue of the PWCJ's findings declaring him a vexatious litigant.
The Appeals Board applied the time limits to deny the request to vacate the vexatious litigant order due to untimely appeal.
Official decision · page 8 → - ADJ3719477 · 2026-06-15 · Bakersfield District Office§ 5900
Determinative passage · p.6II. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) 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" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Maranian, supra, at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final'..."]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ["[t]he term
The WCJ's decision included threshold issues making it a final order subject to reconsideration.
Official decision · page 6 → - ADJ12333976 · 2026-06-08 · Riverside District Office§ 5900
Determinative passage · p.7Turning now to the merits of the Petitions, we remind the parties that 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 considered 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).) This 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].)
Applied to dismiss defendant's untimely petition for reconsideration of the February 1, 2021 Findings.
Official decision · page 7 → - ADJ15732786 · 2026-05-22 · Lodi District Office§ 5900
Determinative passage · p.4II. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) 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" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Threshold issues include, but are not limited to, the following: injury arising out of and in the course of employment, jurisdiction, the existence of an employment relationship and statute of limitations issues. (See Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658, 662 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 1122].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p.
The WCJ's orders regarding admissibility of evidence and QME review were interlocutory and not final, so reconsideration was dismissed.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ20567579 · 2026-05-22 · Anaheim District Office§ 5900
Determinative passage · p.2I. We first address the timeliness of defendant's petition. 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).) This 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.
The defendant's petition was initially filed with the wrong case number but was accepted as timely after correction.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ17466712 · 2026-05-08 · Fresno District Office§ 5900
Determinative passage · p.3II. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) 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" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Maranian, supra, at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final'..."]; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ["[t]he term [`final'] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders"]; Kramer, supra, at p.
Applied to dismiss the petition for reconsideration as the order continuing a status conference is not a final order.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ2419734 · 2026-05-07 · San Francisco District Office§ 5900
Determinative passage · p.4This 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, 656]; 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, 1011]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73, 75§ 76].)
The Board found the petition untimely and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Official decision · page 4 →
All 363 decisions naming § 5900 →
The rules written under this section
A statute says what is owed; Title 8 says by when, on what form, and what happens if the deadline passes. These name § 5900as what they implement.
- 8 CCR § 10112.3Notice of Administrative Penalty Assessment, Appeal Hearing Procedures and Review.
- 8 CCR § 10225.2Notice of Administrative Penalty Assessment, Appeal Hearing Procedures and Review. [Renumbered]repealed
- 8 CCR § 10352Reconsideration of Pro Tempore Workers' Compensation Judge's Orders, Decisions or Awards. [Repealed]repealed
- 8 CCR § 10355Appointment and Authority of Pro Tempore Workers' Compensation Judges.
- 8 CCR § 10498Special Requirements for Pleadings Filed or Served by Attorneys or by Non-Attorney Employees of an Attorney or Law Firm. [Renumbered]repealed
- 8 CCR § 10520Special Requirements for Pleadings Filed or Served by Representatives.
- 8 CCR § 10567Petition Appealing Independent Bill Review Determination.
- 8 CCR § 10575Petition Appealing Independent Medical Review Determination.
- 8 CCR § 10580Petition Appealing Medical Provider Network Determination of the Administrative Director.
- 8 CCR § 10845General Requirements for Petitions for Reconsideration, Removal, and Disqualification, and for Answers and Other Documents. [Repealed]repealed
- 8 CCR § 10848Supplemental Petitions. [Renumbered]repealed
- 8 CCR § 10860Report of Workers' Compensation Judge. [Renumbered]repealed
- 8 CCR § 10864Authority of Workers' Compensation Judge After Decision After Reconsideration. [Renumbered]repealed
- 8 CCR § 10866Reconsideration of Arbitrator's Decisions or Awards Made Pursuant to the Mandatory or Voluntary Arbitration Provisions of Labor Code Sections 5270 through 5275. [Renumbered]repealed
- 8 CCR § 10867Report of Arbitrator. [Repealed]repealed
- 8 CCR § 10940Filing and Service of Petitions for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification and Answers.
- 8 CCR § 10945Required Content of Petitions for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification and Answers.
- 8 CCR § 10957Petition Appealing Independent Bill Review Determination of the Administrative Director. [Renumbered]repealed
- 8 CCR § 10957.1Petition Appealing Independent Medical Review Determination of the Administrative Director. [Renumbered]repealed
- 8 CCR § 10959Petition Appealing Medical Provider Network Determination of the Administrative Director. [Renumbered]repealed
- 8 CCR § 10962Report of Workers' Compensation Judge.
- 8 CCR § 10964Supplemental Petitions.
- 8 CCR § 10972Skeletal Petitions.
- 8 CCR § 10986Authority of Workers' Compensation Judge After Decision After Reconsideration.
- 8 CCR § 10995Reconsideration of Arbitrator's Decisions or Awards Made Pursuant to the Mandatory or Voluntary Arbitration Provisions of Labor Code Sections 5270 through 5275.
Also on this
Unofficial guide — not legal advice. The statute is the state’s text. The quotes are litigated applications, not a prediction.
About California Labor Code § 5900
What is California Labor Code § 5900?
Labor Code § 5900 sits in ARTICLE 1. Reconsideration [5900 - 5911]. The statute on this page begins: (a) Any person aggrieved directly or indirectly by any final order, decision, or award made and filed by the appeals board or a workers’. The official display is on LegInfo; this is a reprint.
Did WCAB panels apply Labor Code § 5900 in this corpus?
This corpus has 363 released decisions whose extracted legal standards named § 5900. Quotes and PDFs are on this page. That is not every case in California that ever cited the section.