What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted, December 16, 2020 Order to Dismiss rescinded, matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings
Petition for Reconsideration granted, December 16, 2020 Order to Dismiss rescinded, matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings
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 Board found the petition for reconsideration timely and equitable to grant, rescinding the dismissal and returning the matter for further hearing.
From the decision · page 3The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") issued an Order for Dismissal 12/23/20. Applicant has filed a timely and verified request for Reconsideration on the following grounds pursuant to Labor Code § 5903:
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petitioner filed the Petition for Reconsideration on 2/16/21, timely after receiving the Order to Dismiss on 1/20/21
Favours Applicant prevailed
This timely filing supported granting reconsideration and rescinding the dismissal.
From the decision · page 3Petitioner is correct the Order was not served on applicant counsel or applicant. During teleworking conditions, it is difficult for staff to serve all on the address record via email and there is no ability to do so by mail when not in the office. Receipt of the Order is acknowledged having been served by defense counsel on 1/20/21 and the petition being filed on the first business day after the 25th day, is timely.
Order to Dismiss was not served on applicant or counsel by WCJ but was served by defense counsel on 1/20/21
Favours Applicant prevailed
The lack of initial service by WCJ but later service by defense counsel justified reconsideration as timely.
From the decision · page 3Petitioner is correct the Order was not served on applicant counsel or applicant. During teleworking conditions, it is difficult for staff to serve all on the address record via email and there is no ability to do so by mail when not in the office. Receipt of the Order is acknowledged having been served by defense counsel on 1/20/21 and the petition being filed on the first business day after the 25th day, is timely.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code 5903
Petition for Reconsideration under Labor Code 5903
The Board applied the statute to find the petition timely and to grant reconsideration to set aside the dismissal.
From the decision · page 3The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("WCJ") issued an Order for Dismissal 12/23/20. Applicant has filed a timely and verified request for Reconsideration on the following grounds pursuant to Labor Code § 5903:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Petitioner did not file objection to Notice of Intent to Dismiss for 4 months despite receiving it
From the decision · page 3Petitioner acknowledges that he received the defendant's Petition to Dismiss at the end of August 2020 but did not file an objection until 4 months later in December 2020 despite knowing the petition states it is the intent to seek dismissal within 30 days unless objection is made. (See items #6, #7 of p. 3 of Petition and quote at p. 4, lines 8-10.) However, these statement then becomes confusing/contradictory as petitioner states at p. 4, line 23 that he did not receive copies of the Notice of Intent todismiss.
Order to Dismiss was not served on applicant or counsel by WCJ but was served by defense counsel later
From the decision · page 3Petitioner is correct the Order was not served on applicant counsel or applicant. During teleworking conditions, it is difficult for staff to serve all on the address record via email and there is no ability to do so by mail when not in the office. Receipt of the Order is acknowledged having been served by defense counsel on 1/20/21 and the petition being filed on the first business day after the 25th day, is timely.
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.