What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed as untimely.
Petition for Reconsideration of a July 25, 2023 Findings and Award; petition reviewed by WCAB.
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 filed after the 30-day statutory deadline, making it untimely and depriving the Appeals Board of jurisdiction to consider it.
From the decision · page 2timely manner. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on October 25, 2023 is untimely and will be dismissed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Petition for Reconsideration was filed on October 25, 2023, more than 30 days after the July 25, 2023 Findings and Award.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lateness made the petition untimely and deprived the Board of jurisdiction to consider it.
From the decision · page 2timely manner. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on October 25, 2023 is untimely 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 filed with the WCAB within 30 days of a final decision served by mail to an address outside California; mailing within the period is insufficient, and the time limit is jurisdictional.
The petition was filed after the 30-day deadline, so the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
From the decision · page 1This 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].)
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.